Freeman Megamerge

Robbo

It's been a while since I've checked in on some of the usual Freemen and it seems that the Hub is on the hunt for donations again. Not for any of their usual "the Loch Ness monster came into the office in tears with a letter from the bank and we gave him three fiddy" reasons but because they want €5,000 for a "senior council" to help them run "the most important legal case in Irish Banking History: loose this and we loose the lot."

And there was us thinking that they'd be running the case themselves but as ever with Freemen, self preservation always nudges them towards employing professionals late on when someone else can pick up the tab (viz Tom Darcy et al).

They've also been running seminars, as reported gushingly here. With a straight face, they hoped that no one would Google the speakers involved and called someone "one of the most experienced and knowledgeable lay litigants in the country" when their entire record is of failure at each step. Best not to mention the heavily leveraged property portfolio and lavish lifestyle expenses as well.

For Forks Sake

Robbo wrote: »

I
They've also been running seminars, as reported gushingly here. With a straight face, they hoped that no one would Google the speakers involved and called someone "one of the most experienced and knowledgeable lay litigants in the country" when their entire record is of failure at each step. Best not to mention the heavily leveraged property portfolio and lavish lifestyle expenses as well.

That is quite the rogues gallery of imbeciles.

whippet

Experienced in litigation in the same way a junkie serial robber with 100+ convictions has loads of experience in court

endacl

Miriam of the family Freeman?



From the sublime, etc...

Serjeant Buzfuz

Ben Gilroy claims he will seek Habeas Corpus for the Athlone 2 tomorrow!
Where did he get his licence to practise law?

PopePalpatine

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Ben Gilroy claims he will seek Habeas Corpus for the Athlone 2 tomorrow!
Where did he get his licence to practise law?

Inside a Tesco Value cereal box, where else? :pac:

For Forks Sake

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Ben Gilroy claims he will seek Habeas Corpus for the Athlone 2 tomorrow!
Where did he get his licence to practise law?

Same place as the signs nailed to the front of his house to keep bailiffs at bay i would imagine.

Canadel

Graham wrote: »

So you'd be ok if a couple of lads stood outside a school speaking their mind about how you might be fiddling with children? How about if they sat at the bar in your local chatting about you taking drugs or started hanging around your place of work discussing you stealing the petty cash?

According to your earlier posts even though any of that isn't true it should be permitted without consequence as freedom of speech?

How likely is your first example? You just concocted the most awful sounding scenario you could think of. Which is fair enough. But if anything it proves my point. Because the likelihood of it occuring are so slim, and even if it did, most people are not stupid enough to trust " a couple of lads" as a reliable source, that the right to free speech should take precendce over it. Rights must be balanced against each other. And the right to free speech in the context of which we are discussiong i.e. to speak one's mind in public, should still absolutely outweigh the right to a good name as inferred in your example(s).

hullaballoo

Canadel wrote: »

How likely is your first example? You just concocted the most awful sounding scenario you could think of. Which is fair enough. But if anything it proves my point. Because the likelihood of it occuring are so slim, and even if it did, most people are not stupid enough to trust " a couple of lads" as a reliable source, that the right to free speech should take precendce over it. Rights must be balanced against each other. And the right to free speech in the context of which we are discussiong i.e. to speak one's mind in public, should still absolutely outweigh the right to a good name as inferred in your example(s).

Free speech is subordinate to the right to a good name in this jurisdiction.

You have already been advised not to post here again in relation to this issue.

Further information on defamation law is quite easily obtainable online, so please avail of some of those resources and then you will be able to see that your posts are incorrect, as well as off topic for the thread and more suited to barstool lawyer conversation than this forum.

hullaballoo

^^^Mod post.

Unrealistic

Canadel wrote: »

Constructive argument.


Defamation should not apply to spekaing your mind in a public place when not on a platform like an organised event or radio etc.

According to a lot of posters here, if a person walking along a street is speaking aloud about how awful such and such company is, or what a dick such and such a person is, they are possibly at risk of being sued for defamation. It's as ludicrous an argument as any freeman would make.

Those are expressions of opinion, not statements of fact. On the other hand if a person walking along the street was instead saying that such and such a company puts dog meat in their hamburgers or such and such a person steals milk from his neighbours doorstep then that would leave them open to an action for defamation. If you could not prove those statements were true you'd be in hot water.

Canadel wrote: »

How likely is your first example? You just concocted the most awful sounding scenario you could think of. Which is fair enough. But if anything it proves my point. Because the likelihood of it occuring are so slim, and even if it did, most people are not stupid enough to trust " a couple of lads" as a reliable source, that the right to free speech should take precendce over it. Rights must be balanced against each other. And the right to free speech in the context of which we are discussiong i.e. to speak one's mind in public, should still absolutely outweigh the right to a good name as inferred in your example(s).

You think that should be the case, fine. But have the common sense to recognise that there is a difference between how you personally believe things should be and how the law is actually structured. It's not just in Ireland. This is the case even in the US with it's First Amendment protections. Don't like the law? Lobby TDs to get it changed. Lobby your fellow citizens to vote for TDs who will advocate changing the law. But I don't think you'll actually find many people who are willing to vote to give others carte blanche to spread damaging false rumours about them.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Canadel wrote: »

How likely is your first example? You just concocted the most awful sounding scenario you could think of. Which is fair enough. But if anything it proves my point. Because the likelihood of it occuring are so slim, and even if it did, most people are not stupid enough to trust " a couple of lads" as a reliable source, that the right to free speech should take precendce over it. Rights must be balanced against each other. And the right to free speech in the context of which we are discussiong i.e. to speak one's mind in public, should still absolutely outweigh the right to a good name as inferred in your example(s).

You should pay heed to the mod, if you can..

Esel

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

You should pay heed to the mod, if you can..

Was the mod on his oath? Do not consent!

Serjeant Buzfuz

Esel wrote: »

Was the mod on his oath? Do not consent!

I think he crossed the bar...

eldamo

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

I think he crossed the bar...

Mod Overboard!

Serjeant Buzfuz

Anybody know how did Ben Gilroy get on with his "haebus" corpus application this morning?

nuac

eldamo wrote: »

Mod Overboard!

Mod, No, on the Bridge, but has other parts of ship to visit

jd

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Anybody know how did Ben Gilroy get on with his "haebus" corpus application this morning?

The two guys are out. His version of what happened is on his FB page, I wonder does anyone else have an account of what happened.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Serjeant Buzfuz

The state didn't contest it for some reason, disappointingly....

whippet

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

The state didn't contest it for some reason, disappointingly....

Sometimes it's easier to give kids what they want rather than having an argument about it.

It was a shot across the bows by the judge and I'd guess they won't be as forthcoming the next time the full time protesters step over the line

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

eldamo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36499750

Loads of Freeman goodness in that story. Crown Corporation? LOL!

You may as well walk into court with a t-shirt saying 'I am an idiot'."

Hehe.

Owryan

eldamo wrote: »

You may as well walk into court with a t-shirt saying 'I am an idiot'."

Hehe.

Of the clan "idiot" and written in red ink with random capital letters inserted.

That way you are free to ignore the court blah blah blah

Flange/Flanders

Joe Doocey just posted this on facebook:

Mod Edit: Can we stop directly quoting these lads when it's quite clearly defamatory?

How this is allowed is beyond me?

Pro Hoc Vice

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Joe Doocey just posted this on facebook:

Mod Edit: Can we stop directly quoting these lads when it's quite clearly defamatory?

How this is allowed is beyond me?

I would take such things from people like him as a compliment when the mad and the bad are attacking you well you must be doing it right.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Dooceys posts are scandalous and defamatory and should be taken down from Facebook, and from here

Little CuChulainn

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Joe Doocey just posted this on facebook:

"nonsense"

Mod edit.

How this is allowed is beyond me?

I'd say he's looking at losing another computer and phone. Wasn't his last one taken for making threats against a judge?

Flange/Flanders

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'd say he's looking at losing another computer and phone. Wasn't his last one taken for making threats against a judge?

Apologies. Just drives me daft seeing the sh1te they can post on facebook and the drivel that they carry on with. There'll be some carrying on tomorrow in Castlebar, all the usual head bangers seem to be coming down.

Serjeant Buzfuz

I don't understand how these guys get away with it, Doocey is carrying a grudge over a criminal conviction he appealed all the way to the Supreme Court without success and has it in for the Judge (Devins) and the state solicitor (now Judge Hughes) who convicted him.