Freeman Megamerge

ohnonotgmail

godtabh wrote: »

Who funds all this? I assume going to the High Court isnt cheap.

in for a penny, in for a pound.

godtabh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in for a penny, in for a pound.

yeah but those penny and pounds ad up. Who pays for it?

whippet

godtabh wrote: »

yeah but those penny and pounds ad up. Who pays for it?

the same fund that pays the loans back. it's a merry-go-round ...

Serjeant Buzfuz

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/judge-secures-injunction-stopping-group-picketing-home-1.2830481

For Forks Sake

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/judge-secures-injunction-stopping-group-picketing-home-1.2830481

About time someone put a stop to those sh1tehawks. I'll wager good money that they're stupid enough to breach it within a month.

Owryan

The usual pages and their supporters are spinning this as a win.

It's actually scary to see how far this level of intimidation has gone to. Of course it's all win win. If they get arrested it's "oppression and state brutality". If they get away with it then it's "power to the people" and proof they are winning.

How long before someone gets hurt?

Kevin3

What's the approximate cost of bringing an injunction like this? It's ridiculous that somone has to personally pay to stop a bunch of loonatics turning up at your door.

What's the story if a judgement was made against a person on jobseekers benefit? I have a feeling that some of these people have far too much time on their hands to be holding down a job. Would they be forced to pay a percentage of their benefits or does it generally go unpaid?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Jimlahey123

Has anyone read Lord Byron's post about Facta's page. They seem to be really wound up. Can they sue a facebook page? Lol

whippet

Jimlahey123 wrote: »

Has anyone read Lord Byron's post about Facta's page. They seem to be really wound up. Can they sue a facebook page? Lol

there is a bit of a keyboard war going on between the lads in Mary street and another serial lay litigant .. seems to be bad blood from a few years back and its all just a bit of handbags really.

Jimlahey123

whippet wrote: »

there is a bit of a keyboard war going on between the lads in Mary street and another serial lay litigant .. seems to be bad blood from a few years back and its all just a bit of handbags really.

That's what i thought, but apparently its not the same person. I have chatted to the admin before, and has no affiliation with any opcal group, and basically just wants to destroy them. Lol

Robbo

It's been a while since I checked in on The Hub-Ireland but my jaw hit the floor at a recent post of theirs.

They've decided that a couple who are legally represented should come and see them. For those who aren't familiar, the barrister in question here would be one of the foremost experts on European law in Ireland and has raised a number of genuine and statable issues in relation to EU Law. But **** me, the lads in the Hub have spent 20 minutes on Google and they think they've it all cracked. Surprised they still aren't referring to the European Coal and Steel Community...

Bear in mind that Lord Byron himself has recently [url=http://www.thehub-ireland.com/home/european-legislationdirective-85577-eec/
]published a guide[/url] on how to use EU law to "cancel" your mortgage which generally contains at least one factual error per sentence. I could point them out but when I've done this before it usually prompts a "revision" of their position.

whippet

Robbo wrote: »

Bear in mind that Lord Byron himself has recently [url=http://www.thehub-ireland.com/home/european-legislationdirective-85577-eec/
]published a guide[/url] on how to use EU law to "cancel" your mortgage which generally contains at least one factual error per sentence. I could point them out but when I've done this before it usually prompts a "revision" of their position.

that article seems to have disappeared, Byron ... you must be subscribed to this thread!

Mind you .. .they have themselves covered on their home page with this disclaimer

Content / Editors / Admin’  are in no way responsible for given information nor for completeness, correctness and for it being up to date. No responsibility can be given to editors if the use of the given information leads to material and/or moral damage. Links to other site slinks to other World Wide Web sites and other material (videos, opinions) on this page are provided solely as a convenience to our visitors. Accordingly, we do not endorse or approve the contents of any third party page/websites/views/videos to which these pages are linked, and we do not accept any liability for action you may take as a result of relying on information or advice obtained from such sites and their content. If you decide to access any of the third party pages/sites linked to this site, you do this entirely at your own risk.

in otherwords .. 'we have compiled a load of dung and put it in to words with some help from donated legal books and google searches .. when it all goes pear shaped don't come back to us .. oh .. and throw a few bob in to the donation bucket on your way out'

whippet

Byron .. you really are on the ball today .. the post has been changed already . instead of inviting the couple to call in to the Hub .. the Lord wonder why it takes an 'International' barrister to take this case ... when the Barrister in question is an Irish lad!!! ... I suppose you can say what you like when the idiots who keep slapping you on the back don't even bother to read the article in question.

Byron .. will you be amending this also?

I suppose it won't lend to the real narrative ... that you should really engage a proper legal professional; but the Hub wouldn't want to promote competition.

GavMan

The angle there is Lord Byron's own difficulties are with Pepper and he obviously wants to see if this is an avenue his own solicitor can explore

ArmaniJeanss

Robbo wrote: »

Bear in mind that Lord Byron himself has recently [url=http://www.thehub-ireland.com/home/european-legislationdirective-85577-eec/
]published a guide[/url] on how to use EU law to "cancel" your mortgage which generally contains at least one factual error per sentence. I could point them out but when I've done this before it usually prompts a "revision" of their position.

Correct link here.
http://www.thehub-ireland.com/home/european-legislationdirective-85577-eec

They seem to mention it every day on their facebook as well as well with talk of how the banks are so scared of 85/557 (EU directive re contracts signed outside the workplace) that the bank legalistas have advised the banks "settle up, pay up, if this gets into the Irish Courts or the Irish media, ya all fcuked"

Why won't anyone mention the major elephant that 85/557 specifically excludes purchases of property?

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Why won't anyone mention the major elephant that 85/557 specifically excludes purchases of property?

That's not strictly speaking correct. However that particular technicality isn't important. It doesn't apply for a HEAP of far simpler reasons.

blueythebear

Hasn't the ecj said that a mortgage is covered by the directive? There were several cases in Germany I believe.

blueythebear

blueythebear wrote: »

Hasn't the ecj said that a mortgage is covered by the directive? There were several cases in Germany I believe.

Again, not 100% accurate. Security backed credit agreements are susceptible to the regulations but not the mortgage themselves.

blueythebear

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, not 100% accurate. Security backed credit agreements are susceptible to the regulations but not the mortgage themselves.

So...cancellation of the contract if it applies means that the security remains in place but the borrower would have to immediately repay the full loan as the credit agreement only is cancelled. Don't see how that helps a distressed borrower but not surprised with this shower

chewey louis

Now I am getting totally confused, why would someone cancel a contract / credit agreement if they had to pay back the loan immediately in full, and also why does the cancelation of contracts only apply to security backed credit agreements and not mortgages, Sorry if these are simple questions but I can't get my head around the fact that a cancelation of contracts only applies to certain types of financial products and not others, ? Thanks

hullaballoo

Why indeed.

LucBetton

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-fails-in-incredible-500-000-claim-over-repossessed-house-1.2836986

For Forks Sake

LucBetton wrote: »

irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-fails-in-incredible-500-000-claim-over-repossessed-house-1.2836986

If ever there was a fitting use for the phrase "a neck like a jockeys boll1x"....

Serjeant Buzfuz

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/four-undertake-not-to-picket-judge-s-home-or-his-wife-s-business-1.2837054

Not so brave after all..,

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Owryan

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/four-undertake-not-to-picket-judge-s-home-or-his-wife-s-business-1.2837054

Not so brave after all..,

Love how they try absolve themselves of any incidents or protests by others despite being responsible for organising the protest in the first place.

For Forks Sake

Owryan wrote: »

Love how they try absolve themselves of any incidents or protests by others despite being responsible for organising the protest in the first place.

They're really not that bright.. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1814150722195263&id=1772591969684472 :rolleyes:

Fire the lot of them off the bridge on their way in.

tonyroc

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gang-drove-security-out-of-repossessed-bungalow-426639.html

whippet

tonyroc wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gang-drove-security-out-of-repossessed-bungalow-426639.html

That is a very different story to what these 'anti eviction' groups are portrayingwhat a bunch of spanners