Freeman Megamerge

nuac

Mod
Thanks, FFS and to all other posters so far for your cooperation

Serjeant Buzfuz

Meanwhile Gerry Beades's case against the Judicial appointments advisory board is thrown out for being frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail, and taken solely for self publicity....,

Robbo

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Meanwhile Gerry Beades's case against the Judicial appointments advisory board is thrown out for being frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail, and taken solely for self publicity....,

Full written judgment here. At 19 pages, it's pretty comprehensive as well.

Notable lulz include:

• Beades looking for judgment in default of defence less than 5 months after issuing proceedings and less than 4 months after filing a statement of claim
• Beades describing himself as a "watchdog" whose case is so important that a legal team should be appointed for him
• Beades throwing a hissy fit as it was moved from one courtroom to another and alerting the press, thus bringing further attention to his ineptitude

Owryan

What does "in default of defence mean"? I read the judgement and can kind of follow it

hullaballoo

Judgment in default of defence is where you seek to get judgment against a Defendant who has not delivered their defence (formal written document) within the time allowed by the court rules.

No practitioner would expect to actually get judgment because the mechanism is in place to compel the Defendant to produce their Defence, rather than getting a summary determination in your favour. There is an argument that the rules should be changed so that summary judgment is not the first available option where pleadings are late to reflect the reality that judgment is almost never given in these circumstances.

Having said that, when I was devilling I managed to get judgment entered against my client for €350,000 while opposing one of these applications by irritating a judge.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Owryan

hullaballoo wrote: »

Judgment in default of defence is where you seek to get judgment against a Defendant who has not delivered their defence (formal written document) within the time allowed by the court rules.

No practitioner would expect to actually get judgment because the mechanism is in place to compel the Defendant to produce their Defence, rather than getting a summary determination in your favour. There is an argument that the rules should be changed so that summary judgment is not the first available option where pleadings are late to reflect the reality that judgment is almost never given in these circumstances.

Having said that, when I was devilling I managed to get judgment entered against my client for €350,000 while opposing one of these applications by irritating a judge.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perfect, thanks. I do legal studies in college so i am slowly learning the ropes. This thread has given me great info, much appreciated.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Owryan wrote: »

Perfect, thanks. I do legal studies in college so i am slowly learning the ropes. This thread has given me great info, much appreciated.

The bill is in the post...

Owryan

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

The bill is in the post...

no contract, no consent

Serjeant Buzfuz

The freemen seem to have a subgroup obsessed with fluoridation and other additives to water, those old enough will remember the campaign to stop the introduction of fluoride to the water supply which brought forth many similar eccentrics

whippet

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

The freemen seem to have a subgroup obsessed with fluoridation and other additives to water, those old enough will remember the campaign to stop the introduction of fluoride to the water supply which brought forth many similar eccentrics

don't for get the anti-vacs and chemtrail lads !!

Losty Dublin

I have to say, I love the irony of this

http://allsopireland.ie/auction/lot/49296

Serjeant Buzfuz

Beades the Bard?

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/cee460fbd2f203d180257fd8002d0e4d?OpenDocument

Jerry apparently hasn't the wit to fill the post of Court Jester....

whippet

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

Beades the Bard?

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/cee460fbd2f203d180257fd8002d0e4d?OpenDocument

Jerry apparently hasn't the wit to fill the post of Court Jester....

was this one of the Habeas corpus type applications that Ben Gilroy is mad about?

in essence the ruling is just that a couple of week in the cells was probably a little over the top for someone who was just being a nuisance in the court and should have been chucked out on their ear rather than being detained?

How come we haven't seen or heard from Ben and Jerry concerning this case

http://www.thejournal.ie/mortgage-investment-property-2834755-Jun2016/

It has all the elements of what the lads get involved with:

Property speculator goes bust - check
Millions in debt - check
No repayments - check

Or will they not bother with the court side of it and just be on hand to occupy the house and block the gate?

Chiorino

"However, what prevents the irreverence of the Fool from descending into intolerable insolence is that it is mitigated by wit, moderation, subtlety, intelligence and at least superficial courtesy. These are qualities that did not unduly trouble Mr. Beades in this case."

Has to be one of the best lines I've ever read in a court determination.

whippet

Chiorino wrote: »

"However, what prevents the irreverence of the Fool from descending into intolerable insolence is that it is mitigated by wit, moderation, subtlety, intelligence and at least superficial courtesy. These are qualities that did not unduly trouble Mr. Beades in this case."

Has to be one of the best lines I've ever read in a court determination.

the learned Judge has managed to summarise most of this thread in one sentence.

Robbo

If I recall from the Facebook postings at the time, Beades and Gilroy claimed to have them on the run by producing "5 law books".

This method of claiming that you can appoint a fake lawyer to represent you by way of a Power of Attorney is slightly concerning in that you have to wonder what else these documents are empowering Gilroy/Beades to do. Given how lacking their knowledge and drafting skills are, I wouldn't be a happy punter signing over my life to them.

Here's another judgment involving Beades and the cattle auction in Cork.

whippet

Robbo wrote: »

This method of claiming that you can appoint a fake lawyer to represent you by way of a Power of Attorney is slightly concerning in that you have to wonder what else these documents are empowering Gilroy/Beades to do. Given how lacking their knowledge and drafting skills are, I wouldn't be a happy punter signing over my life to them.

that is the part that is the most serious. While their antics are a source of humour for us here; there seems to be many sucked in to following them and believing every word out of their mouths .. and suffering as a consequence. I am thinking about the Claire Knowles case recently .. while she was responsible for her own actions it was obvious her mis-guided legal opinion was derived from these charlatans. It ended up with her being dragged through the courts, prison and media ... while Gilroy went on a local radio station guaranteeing that he will have her released and with a huge wedge of compensation on top. I haven't heard him comment on that case since !

On a serious note, is Ben Gilroy still unemployed? I don't recall him having an occupation beside his name on the list of candidates in the GE. I'd be curious as to how he finances his travels all over the country considering he does not charge for the valuable legal advice he peddles?

Robbo

whippet wrote: »

that is the part that is the most serious. While their antics are a source of humour for us here; there seems to be many sucked in to following them and believing every word out of their mouths .. and suffering as a consequence. I am thinking about the Claire Knowles case recently .. while she was responsible for her own actions it was obvious her mis-guided legal opinion was derived from these charlatans. It ended up with her being dragged through the courts, prison and media ... while Gilroy went on a local radio station guaranteeing that he will have her released and with a huge wedge of compensation on top. I haven't heard him comment on that case since !

On a serious note, is Ben Gilroy still unemployed? I don't recall him having an occupation beside his name on the list of candidates in the GE. I'd be curious as to how he finances his travels all over the country considering he does not charge for the valuable legal advice he peddles?

If his Facebook is anything to go by, he's acting as something of a freelance letting agent now; advertising a number of properties his "mates" have in the Dublin area.

Cash only customers. Title in dispute so rent will reflect same for any interference until rightful owner takes care of title issues.

Seems on the level...

GavMan

whippet wrote: »

On a serious note, is Ben Gilroy still unemployed? I don't recall him having an occupation beside his name on the list of candidates in the GE. I'd be curious as to how he finances his travels all over the country considering he does not charge for the valuable legal advice he peddles?

I've the same sort of question about Lord Byron. He comes in from Newbridge via Heuston and Luas. That is not a cheap fare by any stretch of the imagination. Where does the cash come from.

Although easy to get by when you don't pony up the mortgage every month...

whippet

GavMan wrote: »

I've the same sort of question about Lord Byron. He comes in from Newbridge via Heuston and Luas. That is not a cheap fare by any stretch of the imagination. Where does the cash come from.

Although easy to get by when you don't pony up the mortgage every month...

and left the tax man a few bob short also, can he avail of tax saver tickets?

ArmaniJeanss

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/man-who-claimed-seatbelt-law-broke-constitutional-rights-loses-case-1.2693634
This case appears to have on the go for around a decade for no obvious reason.

---

A man who sued the State alleging the law requiring wearing of seatbelts breached his constitutional rights, including to life, has lost a Supreme Court appeal on all grounds.

Eddie Kershaw said he should be exempt from wearing a seatbelt because he needed to be able to get out of his car “quick enough” to defend himself against, or get away from, “abusive” gardaí.

He argued the laws breached his rights to life, bodily integrity and liberty.

whippet

Ben Gilroy has the begging bowl out for the lads in the Hub .. Apparently the 5k they raised isn't enough for their senior council on Friday and the figure has jumped by 100% to 10k.

I thought the senior council they had engaged was the lad who was working with Tom Darcy and his mate in Legal & Equitable (the legal advise and mediation company).

You'd think that a senior council would offer their services for nothing considering the massive public interest in this case?

Also .. How would you only find out 2 days before that your fees were being doubled? And I'm sure with the lads in the hub wouldn't be a credit risk and could get this on a 30 day account with the barrister?

Losty Dublin

whippet wrote: »

Ben Gilroy has the begging bowl out for the lads in the Hub .. Apparently the 5k they raised isn't enough for their senior council on Friday and the figure has jumped by 100% to 10k.

It's times like this when you'd expect that their sovereign friends in the Rodolphus Allen Trust would mortgage off one of their many houses to aid the Hub with a cash advance

Robbo

whippet wrote: »

Ben Gilroy has the begging bowl out for the lads in the Hub .. Apparently the 5k they raised isn't enough for their senior council on Friday and the figure has jumped by 100% to 10k.

I thought the senior council they had engaged was the lad who was working with Tom Darcy and his mate in Legal & Equitable (the legal advise and mediation company).

You'd think that a senior council would offer their services for nothing considering the massive public interest in this case?

Also .. How would you only find out 2 days before that your fees were being doubled? And I'm sure with the lads in the hub wouldn't be a credit risk and could get this on a 30 day account with the barrister?

I'm amazed that they've found a Senior who's willing to be instructed directly by such chancers as the Hub. Unless they've broken their golden rule and gone to a solicitor...

I see there's some serious privacy concerns being raised about how they run their seminars. They're so worried about being infiltrated that have introduced some onerous "verification" processes for punters. Do you really want extremely sensitive personal information and the makings of a nice identity theft scam in the hands of a clowncar of cranks whose main motivation is throwing you under the bus so that they can preserve their own status?

GavMan

Robbo wrote: »

I'm amazed that they've found a Senior who's willing to be instructed directly by such chancers as the Hub. Unless they've broken their golden rule and gone to a solicitor...

I see there's some serious privacy concerns being raised about how they run their seminars. They're so worried about being infiltrated that have introduced some onerous "verification" processes for punters. Do you really want extremely sensitive personal information and the makings of a nice identity theft scam in the hands of a clowncar of cranks whose main motivation is throwing you under the bus so that they can preserve their own status?

Counsel probably sees a handy few bob to be made. Fools and their money are easily parted

Ken.

Their barristers business card. If ever there was a need to be paid up front this is it.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Freemen Fail Again.....

"2. In this somewhat curiously worded affidavit Mr. McNamee states that he is “a non-person (a non-persona), a man living and not dead, acting as a business man” and the attestation clause states that he is “acting in role as Grantor, Governor General, Executor General, Guardian General A living man & all rights reserved”. In the body of the affidavit, Mr. McNamee alleges that the “claim of the plaintiff cannot be verified in the absence of the wet inked original instruments; Thus this matter, has no subject matter jurisdiction since the outset, as the matter stands”. At the hearing of this case, Mr. McNamee outlined that in seeking to defend these proceedings, the defendants were relying on the fact that they had not been provided with sight of the ‘wet-ink’ versions of the loan documentation which the Bank are relying upon to bring these proceedings."

BUT...

"Court must conclude that no credible defence is available to the defendants in this case and so this Court has no option but to grant judgment to the plaintiff in the sum of €1,921,983.45 plus interest of €19,085, giving a total sum of €1,941,068.45. "







http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/06a44fd8546393bc80257fda00302c3c?OpenDocument

Robbo

Big day for The Hub; they're currently in the Court of Appeal. I believe that the appellants may well have solicitors on record for some time so the involvement of the Hub is somewhat puzzling here.

They're either going to try and take credit for the work of legitimate professionals or blame them if it goes wrong. I wonder did the donors know that evil solicitors who are all in league with the banks would be doing the work rather than their plucky underdogs who encourage everyone to represent themselves. It's a classic tactic of these groups that where they have skin in the game, the pros are called in.

Also, they have got involved in a ruck with a receiver in a property which I identify as being on North King Street just around the corner from their World Headquarters. If my Google Maps skills are correct, it's a property that's featured on this thread before and the owner has appeared on this thread before.

The TL;DR version of this little guy sticking it to the man is multi million Euro debts and dozens of properties here and in the UK.

Serjeant Buzfuz

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/man-who-claimed-seatbelt-law-broke-constitutional-rights-loses-case-1.2693634
This case appears to have on the go for around a decade for no obvious reason.

---

A man who sued the State alleging the law requiring wearing of seatbelts breached his constitutional rights, including to life, has lost a Supreme Court appeal on all grounds.

Eddie Kershaw said he should be exempt from wearing a seatbelt because he needed to be able to get out of his car “quick enough” to defend himself against, or get away from, “abusive” gardaí.

He argued the laws breached his rights to life, bodily integrity and liberty.

The Judge remarks, bemusedly

"Mr. Kershaw, who lives in Cherry Orchard, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10, describes himself as an artist and as a Human Rights Defender. I am not quite sure what he means by the latter description, but let’s take it that he has a keen interest in civil liberty and fundamental rights, not simply as affecting himself, but also as these might impact on fellow citizens.":rolleyes: