Freeman Megamerge

Robbo

Umpteen published judgments where arguments raised by lay litigants over mortgage securitisation have failed, still the Hub pushes it as a magic bullet. Bonus conspiratard points for stating that the universal bogeymen, the bondholders, are coming to steal your house.

Robbo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

As this thread evolved, it's moved passed the classic Freeman and more onto vexatious crank-litigants with their internet assembled accolytes trying to imply that the reason their lives are so rubbish is because of some grand cosmic/legal/state conspiracy and that *only they* know the truth. Donations to the usual address, cheques made out to cash only etc.

Therefore II, Manning et al are more than at home here.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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?

The comprehension problem is all yours. I posed the question specifically in relation to the questioning of that particular claim.

At best, it's lazy just to generalise and allege that anything that emanates from I.I. can be automatically disregarded. At worst, it betrays your own prejudice and agenda in doing so.

Last time I checked, this was a discussion board. If you don't have anything to contribute to the specifics of what someone set out for discussion, then why bother?

Now, is that something you understand?

Robbo wrote:

Umpteen published judgements where arguments raised by lay litigants over mortgage securitisation have failed, still the Hub pushes it as a magic bullet. Bonus conspiratard points for stating that the universal bogeymen, the bondholders, are coming to steal your house.

I do empathise with those people's situations and I believe they are most likely well intentioned. However, should that comment be directed at me, I have no in-depth knowledge of the Land League, The Hub, The Freeman Movement, etc.
The question I raised was in relation to the casting of aspersions with regard to Integrity Ireland (and no I'm not a member....yet). I will comment on the 'lay litigant' aspect of your post however. Your industry would be well advised to consider exactly why so many people are finding it necessary to navigate a deliberately convoluted legal system.
The question I raised remains unanswered umpteen posts later.

FreudianSlippers wrote:

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

You mean if it suits your bias to tar them with the same brush - wouldn't that be more accurate? 'Freemen' - insofar as I understand it - don't recognise the courts. Integrity Ireland very much do. Their issue is with the selective usage and appliance of court procedures and laws by people in a position of authority.
I'll acknowledge that they both may be disrupting the status quo (of which I would wager the vast majority of participants in this sub-forum are party to) - but there the similarity ends. Other than that, they couldn't possibly be more different.

Robbo wrote:

As this thread evolved, it's moved passed the classic Freeman

Finally, an acknowledgement.
@Mods: It would be equitable to split this thread off at the point where it has moved beyond discussion of all things 'Freeman'. Disparaging remarks have been made in another boards thread with regard to Integrity Ireland on the basis that the mere mention of it here is evidence that they hold a freeman ideology!

Robbo wrote:

and more onto vexatious crank-litigants

Do you wish to enlighten us as regards what vexatious actions I.I. have taken specifically - or are we at all times on this thread - relying on prejudicial generalisations?
Vexacious? Would that be the vexacious processes in Roscommon and Dublin District Court whereby someone in a position of authority dreamed up some 'traffic offenses' porported to have been commited by one Stephen Manning? Is this the system that you stand over?

Robbo wrote:

with their internet assembled accolytes

People really do have a nerve. How dare they utilise the internet to circumvent the establishment media and share ideas. Perhaps you'd propose the Cuban model of internet access - i.e. NO internet access for the masses. That would put a stop to the blighters.

Robbo wrote:

trying to imply that the reason their lives are so rubbish is because of some grand cosmic/legal/state conspiracy and that *only they* know the truth.

Cosmic? Really?
I see. So establishment authorities and professions such as yours - where there is no proper oversight and accountability? You think that everything is hunky dory and there can't possibly be any issues with any of same? Given that this is the 'Legal Discussion' sub-forum, I don't think that it's unreasonable to suggest that many have an interest in maintaining the status quo - with no regulation (self regulation = no regulation). When you say, "only they" know the truth, that seems to be the position of many here also? Again, I bring your attention to the dealing in generalisations in recent posts. Should anyone wish to take on the question I originally posed, then that would be a welcome addition to the discussion.

Robbo wrote:

Therefore II, Manning et al are more than at home here.

Eh, no. You've already conceded that they don't hold a Freeman Ideology. Therefore, to tar them with the same brush is plain wrong at best (serving a specific agenda at worst).

eldamo

does anyone else miss derry?

hullaballoo

Will I just rename this thread, "Post yizzer logical fallacy heor"?

It's ludicrous. Self-regulation = regulation or self-regulation ≠ not regulation or some other such complete tripe.

Whether I'm competent to comment on this thread remains to be seen.

Vagueness compounded by prolixity compounded by utter horseshit.

Pat Mustard

makeorbrake wrote: »

@Mods: It would be equitable to split this thread off at the point where it has moved beyond discussion of all things 'Freeman'. Disparaging remarks have been made in another boards thread with regard to Integrity Ireland on the basis that the mere mention of it here is evidence that they hold a freeman ideology!

Mod:

No. All of the pseudo-legal, crank stuff and crazy nonsense is contained in one thread for a good reason.

Also, if you want to make a suggestion, it would be more appropriate if you raised it via PM or in the Feedback forum, rather than on-thread.

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

The comprehension problem is all yours. I posed the question specifically in relation to the questioning of that particular claim.

And I gave you an answer to the specific question you asked. Why was it the best bit? Because it showed the group for the hypocrites they are. They demand people obey the law and follow procedure while completely discarding both when it does not suit them. That is I.I. in a nut shell. That is why their cases are laughed out of court and one of their high profile members is on the run for a hit and run.

makeorbrake

hullaballoo wrote: »

Will I just rename this thread, "Post yizzer logical fallacy heor"?

Not worthy of comment.

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's ludicrous. Self-regulation = regulation or self-regulation ≠ not regulation or some other such complete tripe.

Yeah. I guess it was ludicrous of the I.M.F. to suggest that your profession was in need of major reform. Edna got them out before they could insist on same.
The point stands. Self regulation = NO regulation.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Vagueness compounded by prolixity compounded by utter horseshit.

The irony. It's the 'vagueness' and failure to address a specific question that has started off this latest 'exchange'.

Apologies for disrupting the love-in.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And I gave you an answer to the specific question you asked. Why was it the best bit? Because it showed the group for the hypocrites they are. They demand people obey the law and follow procedure while completely discarding both when it does not suit them. That is I.I. in a nut shell. That is why their cases are laughed out of court and one of their high profile members is on the run for a hit and run.

I see. So you now seem to be suggesting that Paul Collins has presented himself to the Irish Court System on countless occasions porporting to be an 'attorney', 'solicitor' or 'barrister'?
Because of your loathing of I.I., then this is ok then is it?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Because it showed the group for the hypocrites they are. They demand people obey the law and follow procedure while completely discarding both when it does not suit them. That is I.I. in a nut shell.

If you have evidence of Integrity Ireland breeching the law, I suggest you bring that evidence to the attention of the Gardai. You're also welcome to outline it here although it would be wise to be in a position to back up your assertion.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That is why their cases are laughed out of court

For example? Others have drawn attention to 'vagueness'. I wouldn't want to see them get on your case in that regard.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

and one of their high profile members is on the run for a hit and run.

You mean an 'alleged' hit and run, in the middle of a Garda operation the nature of which has not been clarified - the incident happening immediately (and I mean immediately - with the individual having driven from the Courthouse to the Train Station - and the first moment he was on his own, this operation was executed) in the aftermath of a court process which implicated the Gardai.
Are the Gardai preparing an extradition warrant for that individual? If not, why not?

makeorbrake

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

No. All of the pseudo-legal, crank stuff and crazy nonsense is contained in one thread for a good reason.

Also, if you want to make a suggestion, it would be more appropriate if you raised it via PM or in the Feedback forum, rather than on-thread.

On that basis, I won't be taking any further part in this prejudicial 'discussion'.

whippet

makeorbrake wrote: »

On that basis, I won't be taking any further part in this prejudicial 'discussion'.

Talk soon Stephen

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

I see. So you now seem to be suggesting that Paul Collins has presented himself to the Irish Court System on countless occasions porporting to be an 'attorney', 'solicitor' or 'barrister'?
Because of your loathing of I.I., then this is ok then is it?

I haven't suggested anything of the sort. I never even mentioned the mans name. I've repeatedly said it's nothing to do with the truth of the claim but you just keep ignoring it.

makeorbrake wrote: »

If you have evidence of Integrity Ireland breeching the law, I suggest you bring that evidence to the attention of the Gardai. You're also welcome to outline it here although it would be wise to be in a position to back up your assertion.

People can see it in the videos they post.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You mean an 'alleged' hit and run,

No I don't mean alleged. He admitted to it in his video. He hit the Garda with his car and then drove off. That is a hit and run. You can dress it up all you want like he does but that is what happened. Those facts are not disputed. Fact 1: The car he was driving made contact with a person. Fact 2: He did not comply with his requirements under section 106 of the Road Traffic Act. Stop, Remain at Scene, Provide appropriate information, report the matter to Gardaí.

makeorbrake

whippet wrote: »

Talk soon Stephen

Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not 'Stephen' :-)

I'm on record as outlining (on both threads) that I'm not even a member of I.I. - albeit that I'd happily sign up if someone put an application form in front of me.

Others were asked (on the other thread) to declare their own interests (i.e. a member of legal profession, gardai, courts service - or connected through family or otherwise with same) but nobody responded.


Anyway, following Pat Mustards moderation remarks, I respectfully decline to participate further in this prejudicial discussion.

FreudianSlippers

Take your ball and run along.

whippet

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'm on record as outlining (on both threads) that I'm not even a member of I.I. - albeit that I'd happily sign up if someone put an application form in front of me.

http://www.integrityireland.ie/application.html

There you go; tell us all about how great they are when you are accepted

... when you 'donate' you'll get a cool membership ID, discounted prices on I.I. merchandise along with other brilliant goodies !!

makeorbrake wrote: »

Others were asked (on the other thread) to declare their own interests (i.e. a member of legal profession, gardai, courts service - or connected through family or otherwise with same) but nobody did respond.

my membership / interests are IT professional specialising in hosted IT infrastructure, played amateur soccer for years, rugby as a spectator and the occasional dipping in to the affairs of crackpots and pesudo legal peddlers for the craic. Zero political affiliation

How about yourself?

whippet

back on track and it seems that Mr. Gilroy had a 'victory' in the high court

http://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/ben-gilroy-proves-receivers-were-invalidly-appointed-and-were-trespassers-at-law/

as it was a lazy bank holiday weekend I actually read through the judgement and I must give a hat tip to Mr Gilroy with regards to the one point that he managed to prove.

It seems that due to ACC's own internal controls around the requirement of nominated persons to sign receivership paperwork being a little more stringent than what is actually required the appointment of a receiver to a business owing almost €4m was deemed invalid.

As always Ben Gilroy stands up for the little man being thrown out on the street, much like the warrior for the common man Jerry Beades and the antics of Gorsehill.

As someone who isn't a legal professional could someone elaborate on this ruling; is there anything which would stop ACC just appointing a new receiver in the proper way and continuing on with the process?

Also, it should be noted that other claims by Gilroy were shot down by the judge .. it was only this one anomaly regarding the requirements of a signature and seal.

trueblueterry

Whippet - It would seem as you have pointed out that the case was won off the back of the improper sealing of the deed, in such circumstances you are correct in thinking that they can simply seal a new deed of appointment (hopefully correctly this time) and proceed on that basis.

The might also just appeal this matter as it would appear that the minutes are open to interpretation regarding they sealing of the deed and ACC might want to try again with another Judge.

Alternatively they have a judgement against him already so they could just have him declared bankrupt and appoint a new Receiver then who would simply have to deal with the official assignee.

whippet

as they had cost awarded to them .. what can they claim for out side of documentation fees? Gilroy is a mckensie friend type representation and I am not sure if he can charge for his services in the court.

trueblueterry

They can't charge for legal fees unless there was an actual legal professional involved which it appears there wasn't so they can only claim the costs of filing documents.

They were awarded damages which may provide them with some money however I would imagine the Bank would write this off against the Judgement they already have against him and therefore it would cost them anything in the long run.

relax carry on

From Integrity Irelands latest missive. (Warning, content may or may not have similarities to Freemanism)

Caveat of affirmation: We respectfully assert our statutory rights to fair and equitable treatment, and reserve the moral right to disengage communication with any individual or agency who, through the means of misinformation, evasiveness, obfuscation, deception or other disingenuous tactics, contrives to avoid fulfilling their mandate to the public [as defined in the Constitution, respective codes of ethics, oaths of office and/or terms of service] other than where we are legally obliged to do so. We further affirm our right to note, report, record and/or publish any communications sent or received for the purposes of transparency, due accountability, and in the interests of natural justice. We further reserve the right to hold responsible under the law any individual, agent or agency we deem responsible for deliberate civil, criminal or constitutional breaches, and to bill any such agents or agencies for time and costs incurred. We do not deal with anonymous, pseudonymous, allonymous or imaginary entities. Annotated emails are accepted under certain exceptional or pre-agreed circumstances, but important or legal correspondence must also be sent as hard copies, duly signed. Unsigned correspondence that is not ascribed to one authorised individual will not be responded to and may be returned for signing, with costs billed to the source thereof. For practical reasons, legal matters will be dealt with on Mondays and Tuesdays only. Please be advised.

http://www.integrityireland.ie/page41.html

ohnonotgmail

relax carry on wrote: »

From Integrity Irelands latest missive. (Warning, content may or may not have similarities to Freemanism)

Caveat of affirmation: We respectfully assert our statutory rights to fair and equitable treatment, and reserve the moral right to disengage communication with any individual or agency who, through the means of misinformation, evasiveness, obfuscation, deception or other disingenuous tactics, contrives to avoid fulfilling their mandate to the public [as defined in the Constitution, respective codes of ethics, oaths of office and/or terms of service] other than where we are legally obliged to do so. We further affirm our right to note, report, record and/or publish any communications sent or received for the purposes of transparency, due accountability, and in the interests of natural justice. We further reserve the right to hold responsible under the law any individual, agent or agency we deem responsible for deliberate civil, criminal or constitutional breaches, and to bill any such agents or agencies for time and costs incurred. We do not deal with anonymous, pseudonymous, allonymous or imaginary entities. Annotated emails are accepted under certain exceptional or pre-agreed circumstances, but important or legal correspondence must also be sent as hard copies, duly signed. Unsigned correspondence that is not ascribed to one authorised individual will not be responded to and may be returned for signing, with costs billed to the source thereof. For practical reasons, legal matters will be dealt with on Mondays and Tuesdays only. Please be advised.

http://www.integrityireland.ie/page41.html

i stopped reading after the first three sentences.

Oryx

It seems to me that a certain poster who took objection to us in the recent past may have undeclared connections to II because that sounds like the follow on from the arguments made by him or her on feedback and elsewhere

SpaceSasqwatch

Oryx wrote: »

It seems to me that a certain poster who took objection to us in the recent past may have undeclared connections to II because that sounds like the follow on from the arguments made by him or her on feedback and elsewhere

I'm just glad I didnt get a bill tbh.

That poster opened a funny thread in helpdesk

In fairness it did lead to the thread about changing this thread title to incorporate not only freemen loony sh1te but a more generic loony sh1te catch all thread.

Not to cross threads but this should be called the Legal Cults Thread.

Integrity Ireland, like all the other groups, follow a simple pattern. They are generally cult like groups where one or more of the main antagonists thinks themselves quite the have a go lawyer who has special insight into how things really work. Just as a religious cult has its own gurus with special knowledge so too do these groups.

When presented with contrary information, facts or arguments they accuse the interrogator of having a vested interest, having their eyes closed to the truth or avoiding the real point (blissfully unaware of the irony of the last statement of course).

Like cults they attract the vulnerable and disenfranchised who feel empowered by their simple message that the world is unfair to you but that the cult has all the answers and can show you the truth that it's not your fault, someone else is to blame and we can help you .........and if you want to help us out with a donation here and there then so be it.

And just like all cults we should have nothing but contempt for the leaders and nothing but sympathy for those taken in by them.

eldamo

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to cross threads but this should be called the Legal Cults Thread.

Integrity Ireland, like all the other groups, follow a simple pattern. They are generally cult like groups where one or more of the main antagonists thinks themselves quite the have a go lawyer who has special insight into how things really work. Just as a religious cult has its own gurus with special knowledge so too do these groups.

When presented with contrary information, facts or arguments they accuse the interrogator of having a vested interest, having their eyes closed to the truth or avoiding the real point (blissfully unaware of the irony of the last statement of course).

Like cults they attract the vulnerable and disenfranchised who feel empowered by their simple message that the world is unfair to you but that the cult has all the answers and can show you the truth that it's not your fault, someone else is to blame and we can help you .........and if you want to help us out with a donation here and there then so be it.

And just like all cults we should have nothing but contempt for the leaders and nothing but sympathy for those taken in by them.

Can I quote this in the Irish Water Thread?:)

eldamo

eldamo wrote: »

Can I quote this in the Irish Water Thread?:)

Which one????

eldamo

Deleted User wrote: »

Which one????

The one filled with crazy people!

Oh, that doesn't narrow it down at all!

whippet

some classy stuff here by the Hub lads ... really a nice bunch of people. When they are not rubbing their ego's asking randomers on the street where their own offices are they fill their minions full of this type of bile

Oryx

That reminds me of the drunken asshole in the pub spouting on. They guy you always try to avoid at the end of the night because he is full of it. But unfortunately this is a lot more dangerous than a drunk fool.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.