Freeman Megamerge

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

Nobody would argue otherwise but nobody will lift a finger to do anything about it....as it stares the whole country in the face....most especially not here.

This is a website. Report it to GSOC if you want something done. This isn't an activist forum it's a discussion forum.

makeorbrake wrote: »

What law specifically is being broken? Have you explained that to AGS (as they regularly record in our courts)? You might also ask them why on occasion courts service cctv footage has been erased.
Whether or not there is a law being broken, in the same way as McCabe felt the need to covertly record his meeting, plenty feel the need to record the shenanigans in our courts.
I'm sure he was probably breaking AGS policy in some way or other. I call on him to be disciplined for that action. What's the chances...

It's not a statutory offense. It's considered a contempt in the face of the court and is dealt with by means of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. AGS do not record within the precincts of any court but if they did they could not do so without express permission. If they did you should inform the court of same as it is a contempt just as it would be for anyone else.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a website. Report it to GSOC if you want something done. This isn't an activist forum it's a discussion forum.

Congratulations on the sense of humour (GSOC). AS regards it being an 'activist' forum, I never suggested such a thing. Surely something that 'nobody would argue otherwise' about would not be in need of activism?

As for you pointing out this is a discussion forum, thank you for that. You'll see that my comments link back to the 'discussion' of other posters here - namely the hypocrisy of demanding those that take video in a court be pursued with the full rigours of the law when the very same people go quiet when it applies closer to home (that by way of reference to our two friends in AGS).

Deleted User wrote:

It's not a statutory offence. It's considered a contempt in the face of the court and is dealt with by means of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. AGS do not record within the precincts of any court but if they did they could not do so without express permission. If they did you should inform the court of same as it is a contempt just as it would be for anyone else.

I see. So people who are of a mind that our judiciary are trampling on individuals rights - and with that video proceedings. The only ones who can give permission to record are those they allege to be the wrongdoers - who it seems have on occasion given permission to one party to record (as I stated, AGS have recorded in our courts on occasion in recent times) but not those who find fault with them.
We've also had courts where the public have been excluded from proceedings (and i'm not talking about family law cases) but I guess court rules and the law itself is a selective a-la-carte affair for those in a position of authority.

ArmaniJeanss

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Manning has split from them all, for reasons unknown.

Doctor Not filed his papers to run in the last election, and displayed a remarkable lack of acumen by posing for a beaming smile photo with the registrar that II members had had prior run-ins with. These members took umbrage with this, chief among them being Il Doocey.
Hilarity ensued upon all their facebook pages for a few days.

Noticeable over the last week that a thaw seems to have set in, I suspect they'll be best buds again in a few months. If the various factions could pool their resources they could get over 300 votes next time.

Esel

I'm getting a major flashback of déjà vu from/off the recent posts here, for some strange reason...

Serjeant Buzfuz

Esel wrote: »

I'm getting a major flashback of déjà vu from/off the recent posts here, for some strange reason...

It's deja vu all over again...

joe swanson

Id love to know what the mccabe saga has to do with this thread !???

For Forks Sake

HamsterFace wrote: »

What is the intent behind posting someones private address? Even if it is in the phone book, why post it on a Facebook page?
It's, without doubt, suggesting that someone should pay the house a "visit".

Dangerous ground.

That was precisely what was being implied. The post is still visible on his page.

/Mod//

Part of this post deleted as it was defamatory

Little CuChulainn

Before anyone gets into an argument with makeorbake you should check out this thread. It's a pointless endeavour.

EDIT: Reading the linked thread may result in a feeling similar to that felt by the Nazis at the end of Indian Jones and the Ark of the Covenant.

Flange/Flanders

makeorbrake wrote: »

(apologies for disturbing the love-in but those of the opposing view are not going anywhere. It's a long road but ultimately, we're taking you down).

What love in? Who are you taking down? I'm not a member of An Garda Siochana, a member of the law industry, a member of the finance industry. However, I think that some of the regular posters we see on FB are deluded nobodies, people who will never achieve anything through hard work or talent and who feel that this form of "activism" is their best chance of finding fame and notierity. I mean, off the top of my head I can think of a man with a drug conviction and a man with a conviction for insurance fraud (if you google the names the headlines are easy to find)

I had to laugh at the notion that this cabal think that they can achieve any sort of victory.

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

If someone has a criminal conviction that is a fact

Likewise if someone does not have a criminal conviction and someone claims they have committed a crime, it's an opinion. Your posts seem to favour a public discourse where one canly only deal in facts.

Canadel

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

What love in? Who are you taking down? I'm not a member of An Garda Siochana, a member of the law industry, a member of the finance industry. However, I think that some of the regular posters we see on FB are deluded nobodies, people who will never achieve anything through hard work or talent and who feel that this form of "activism" is their best chance of finding fame and notierity. I mean, off the top of my head I can think of a man with a drug conviction and a man with a conviction for insurance fraud (if you google the names the headlines are easy to find)

I had to laugh at the notion that this cabal think that they can achieve any sort of victory.

This post could very easily apply to Irish water protesters over the last few years.

Graham

Would someone give me a nudge if the thread ever gets back on topic. Thanks

Losty Dublin

Graham wrote: »

Would someone give me a nudge if the thread ever gets back on topic. Thanks

Was this thread ever on topic in the first place?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All posters in this thread ought to make to swear an oath of office or be made attend ten water meter protests or some such sovereign seal like thingymajig.

Canadel

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nope, freemen are about as realistic and ridiculous as libertarians.

nuac

Robbo wrote: »

DDI stalwart and general loon Ray Hall has a blog. And it's proper mental.

Ray believes in *anything* that the Freemen are selling. He knows the *real* Constitution, all our unborn souls are heavily mortgaged to the Euroverlords for €47,000 and that you can make your own money with magic promises and there's not a thing the other side can do but accept it.

His recent account of assisting a friend is all kinds of bat****.

All I can think of here is a module in the Inns where John McCrirrick comes in and teaches all the younglings Tic-Tac.

DAmmit.

After all those years in courts have only now heard of those secret hand signals. Explains some unexpected decisions

Indricotherium

Canadel wrote: »

Nope, freemen are about as realistic and ridiculous as libertarians.

True.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Before anyone gets into an argument with makeorbake you should check out this thread. It's a pointless endeavour.

EDIT: Reading the linked thread may result in a feeling similar to that felt by the Nazis at the end of Indian Jones and the Ark of the Covenant.

Oh.. Doc Hawaii..

Robbo

Not surprisingly, Jerry Beades didn't get on too well in his attempt to stop Kelly J being made President of the High Court.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Graham

Robbo wrote: »

Not surprisingly, Jerry Beades didn't get on too well in his attempt to stop Kelly J being made President of the High Court.

Costs awarded against him too.

Robbo

Graham wrote: »

Costs awarded against him too.

Wonder how Qatar might be persuaded to enforce this...

Serjeant Buzfuz

Link to report on Manning and Granahan case, I wonder who will draw the short straw to deal with the case

http://www.mayonews.ie/news/27958-judge-tells-defendant-court-will-not-be-his-soapbox


Mod; No further comment please re Messrs Manning and Granahan anf their issues pending the adjourned DC hearing

Canadel

Judge Devins told Mr Manning that she cannot and will not respond to this and also asked the defendant to stop barracking her. Mr Manning denied barracking her and said he was speaking clearly and respectfully.

.

Mr Manning also questioned Judge Mary Devins if she was the right person to deal with the case after he claimed he was seeking to have her impeached.

.

/Mod// I have asked, nicely. for no comment here. Comments deleted

ArmaniJeanss

nuac wrote:

Mod; No further comment please re Messrs Manning and Granahan anf their issues pending the adjourned DC hearing

/Mod
Post deleted

Canadel

Careful now.

/Mod
Requote of previous AJ post deleted.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

Careful now.

Is that your opinion?

Canadel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Is that your opinion?

It's a Father Ted reference.

Canadel

Canadel wrote: »

Careful now.

/Mod
Requote of previous AJ post deleted.

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Is that your opinion?

I think this validates my "opinion".

For there are fellas who'd sue you for the coat on your back..