Freeman Megamerge

Thargor

Thats all you took from that post? I notice you neglected to answer the question of what difference you see this making to anything? When you declare something to be a great victory you'd usually expect it to make some kind of material difference to someone, assuming its not just more of the usual distortion and hot air of course. Also do please provide a link to where you proved anything in the High Court while you're at it.

The "hubbers" get slated on here and other boards because its amusing to laugh at the deluded, especially the nastier elements who want free houses at the expense of the taxpayer.

chewey louis

My point is that when it comes to repossession in the courts there is no law in this country and they make it up as they go along, cruminality is ignored daily, the paperwork from the plaintiffs is a joke and to see people sitting in front of Judges that are up to there necks in debt to the very same banks that are in front of them, the registrars are totally incompetent and have no clue of what they are there for. There is a mantra did you get the money and if so ignore everything else regardless. The recent debacle on rateable value is a prime example. As everyone knows there was no rateable value but it was allowed to proceede through the courts even after judge murphys ruling and now even after the langan ruling the courts are refusing to void the orders granted on rateable value and just to make sure no one is held to account they recently gave an exemption from prosacution for anyone who signed a rateable value cert. Check out the latest courts bill 2016

RayCun

So it sounds like you agree with most posters here, that the various legal arguments presented by freemen and their ilk have no chance of success

chewey louis

Free houses at the expense of the taxpayer? No decent person could expect tot be give anything free at the expenses of the taxpayer, well no ordinary person anyway. Unless of course you were a financial institution who might expect a few billion to stay afloat and say another billion to top the lads pension. The tide is turning and as people will now head to Europe to get a fair hearing there is no point even talking about our corrupt little country any longer

chewey louis

some of the stuff presented to the courts by lay litigants is pure muck and is actually enbarrasing to watch but what also is embarrassing to watch is proper defences getting ignored

Thargor

Please state what you expect to happen, you came in here with this gloating post implying the hubbers were right about something:

chewey louis wrote: »

So guys is the master and the hubbers right? It looks like Lord Bryon made his detractors look like a right bunch of clowns, where are the ones who laughed at the idea that the hubbers might be right, come on guys be big enough to come out and give your opinion, let's face it you were not shy on previous occasions 😂😂😂

Can you please explain what you meant by it? Do you expect to see people who refuse to repay money they borrowed being told they can just keep the cash/assets?

chewey louis

Of course people can't hold on to assets when they owe money, what sort of society would it be say if some people didn't have to pay back there debts and could hide there assets say by giving it to the wife. That would never happen. But here's one observation the total home mortgage book in arrears is around 12 billion give or take a few billion. That's the same as the top 5 guys in Nama just saying like

chewey louis

I see Quinn is getting his money back

ArmaniJeanss

As I understand it (not a law person) the Hubs argument stems from a ruling that found that floor mortgages (i.e., the minimum rate can never drop below X%) in Spain contravene EU rules and people must be paid back.

Now Irish mortgages don't have floor clauses, so presumably either they believe another clause in Irish mortgages contravenes EU rules, or else its just a delaying tactic whilst lawyers go through every type of mortgage to see it complies. Which is it?

Serjeant Buzfuz

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

As I understand it (not a law person) the Hubs argument stems from a ruling that found that floor mortgages (i.e., the minimum rate can never drop below X%) in Spain contravene EU rules and people must be paid back.

Now Irish mortgages don't have floor clauses, so presumably either they believe another clause in Irish mortgages contravenes EU rules, or else its just a delaying tactic whilst lawyers go through every type of mortgage to see it complies. Which is it?

The Master and the Hub both appear to have jumped on the bandwagon without really understanding the rationale behind it. An initiative started by NUIG faculty of Law and the Irish Centre for European Law has held seminars before Christmas educating lawyers in potential defences under the lending directive and under the European Charter of Fundamental rights. The idea is to get the Courts to consider the proportionality of repossession of a Family Home under EC law as constitutional arguments have failed to date. The support of either the Hub or The Master is unlikely to endear these arguments to the Superior Courts and is unlikely to be welcomed.
Mr Justice Barret in the High Court in. December case has already remitted a case to the County Registrar to consider the application of the directive

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Serjeant Buzfuz

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

l
Mr Justice Barret in the High Court in. December case has already remitted a case to the County Registrar to consider the application of the directive

Unless he considered the same issue in 2 different cases then this is not what happened. He spoke about the Unfair Terms Directive, held there were no unfair terms and then remitted the case to plenary hearing on an entirely different point

SkinnyBuddha

Mrs cockett wrote: »

The silence is deafening!

says you fecking off to where-ever you do be polluting boards with your nonsense:rolleyes:

SkinnyBuddha

the spanish bank angle might explain why the hubtards wanted to send some lucky members on a junket to barcelona iirc

Mrs cockett

SkinnyBuddha wrote: »

says you fecking off to where-ever you do be polluting boards with your nonsense:rolleyes:

I enjoy a bit of stirring

blueythebear

chewey louis wrote: »

My point is that when it comes to repossession in the courts there is no law in this country and they make it up as they go along, cruminality is ignored daily, the paperwork from the plaintiffs is a joke and to see people sitting in front of Judges that are up to there necks in debt to the very same banks that are in front of them, the registrars are totally incompetent and have no clue of what they are there for. There is a mantra did you get the money and if so ignore everything else regardless. The recent debacle on rateable value is a prime example. As everyone knows there was no rateable value but it was allowed to proceede through the courts even after judge murphys ruling and now even after the langan ruling the courts are refusing to void the orders granted on rateable value and just to make sure no one is held to account they recently gave an exemption from prosacution for anyone who signed a rateable value cert. Check out the latest courts bill 2016

Here you go...

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/abbdbbe465393589802575f5003a751f?OpenDocument


In relation to the EU case and the masters comments (as well as Barret J's decision), this line of argument is yet another line of decisions that make it more cumbersome for the Banks to repossess properties. A unfair contract term can be excised from the contract and the contract still can operate.

Consequences of this is just delay and will buy defaulting borrowers a year or more as this is going to become a political issue. Already, judges and county registrars are reluctant to grant orders for possession and this just gives another reason to not give an order.

MarkR

Is this of a similar vein?

http://speedsociety.com/watching-this-girl-get-owned-by-the-police-for-claiming-she-is-above-the-law-is-awesome/?source=gmg

chewey louis

It is very true people will do anything to get out of having to pay there debts, all you have to do is look at those devolopers in Nama or the judges and legal firms who not only put all the eggs in one basket but borrowed more money to buy more eggs even when the basket was full to the brim, it's now funny sitting watching them prostatute themselvs to the highest creditor or to see the once might legal firms now having to engage in evictions just in the hope they can cover the interest next month on the millions they owe on section 23s in Leitrim, of course people will try to get out of facing up to ther responsibility that's why we have NAMA so they don't have to face any reality or pay anything back, when Nama first came out they even spoke of taking the jewellery from the wives and mistresses but that fell by the wayside and was replaced with giving the biggest debtors a salary just for picking up the phone, I love this country it makes me laugh everyday, I hope Quinn gets all his money back soon so we can watch the TDs telling us this is an outrage and what about the ordinary people in clearys and all that crap, father ted is alive and kicking

Robbo

It's been a while so I decided to check in on Lord Byron and The Hub-Ireland, who we've established long ago don't charge, don't actively beg and don't have certain lifestyles to be maintained.

It turns out they're quite busy declaring the Constitution (and therefore the State) invalid, declaring banks invalid (spoiler alert, KBC is a plc and under no obligation to convert), claiming they don't give advice but also drafting affidavits that their "clients" haven't a breeze about. Business as usual then, donations to the usual address.

In other news, the High Court Central Office are now looking for ID from *everyone* who files papers with them as apparently some fake law firms were basically acting as town agents and filing personal appearances on behalf of others.

chewey louis

Did you watch sell off Ireland and maybe you would like to check in on that and give me your valuable opinion thanks in advance

FreudianSlippers

chewey louis wrote: »

Did you watch sell off Ireland and maybe you would like to check in on that and give me your valuable opinion thanks in advance

Was it about selling debt? If so, welcome to the real world!

chewey louis

far from the real world more like corrupt state, pick up debt at reduced rates then pay no tax on the profits, that's not the real world that's just corrupt politicians changing tax laws to favour certain people while ignoring the people who paid taxes and live here

ohnonotgmail

chewey louis wrote: »

far from the real world more like corrupt state, pick up debt at reduced rates then pay no tax on the profits, that's not the real world that's just corrupt politicians changing tax laws to favour certain people while ignoring the people who paid taxes and live here

why would any company pay full price for distressed debt?

chewey louis

sorry I said they don't pay tax on the profits in fact some even have charoty status

ohnonotgmail

chewey louis wrote: »

sorry I said they don't pay tax on the profits in fact some even have charoty status

who amongst the vulture funds (to use the term most associated with them) have charity status?

chewey louis

Sorry your better off to have a look st the shown sell off Ireland from rte or just google vulture funds using charity status to avoid paying tax, far to much in it to start posting here

Graham

chewey louis wrote: »

Sorry your better off to have a look st the shown sell off Ireland from rte or just google vulture funds using charity status to avoid paying tax, far to much in it to start posting here

How much is in it to list the funds with a charitable status?

1 line, 2, 3?

chewey louis

As I said it might be better if you watched it yourself or try google

Graham

chewey louis wrote: »

As I said it might be better if you watched it yourself or try google

It's ok to just say 'I don't know, it's just something I heard/read on a Facebook post'.

ohnonotgmail

chewey louis wrote: »

As I said it might be better if you watched it yourself or try google

why bring something up if you are not willing to discuss it?