Freeman Megamerge

MilanPan!c

ynotonavillus wrote: »

That is the point many..... not...... all.

Its part of the price we pay to live in this society, that some criminals go free instead of locking up some innocents.

I think it is fair to say the Americans use a slightly different approach, and not sure I would advocate their methods over here.

There's con artists and there's people being conned. No one, not even Americans, are advocating locking up victims of cons... so there's not really a point there to be made...

If you commit a crime due to being brainwashed by a cult, the judge can take that into account, but you're committing a crime...

A judge might say, "hey, this personally genuinely believed they could avoid taxes by only wearing purple pants, so I won't jail him for tax evasion, but he'll still owe his back taxes," etc.

In addition, if there was legislation around con artists groups like this (the Moorish are another example) then it'll be a LOT easier to deal with this situation in a consistent way, and help protect the vulnerable, which should be the primary concern.

ynotonavillus

MilanPan!c wrote: »

There's con artists and there's people being conned. No one, not even Americans, are advocating locking up victims of cons... so there's not really a point there to be made...

My point is that there are also people, sometimes vulnerable/desperate people, being helped by others (non professionals) in situations where there is no con or abuse of the court process going on.

Care should be taken not to to overstate the threat from the real nutters, in a manner that may make access to justice more difficult for those that cannot afford to engage a solicitor.

Not sure about the brainwashing.... cult..... purple pants tax evasion etc.

MilanPan!c

ynotonavillus wrote: »

My point is that there are also people, sometimes vulnerable/desperate people, being helped by others (non professionals) in situations where there is no con or abuse of the court process going on.

Care should be taken not to to overstate the threat from the real nutters, in a manner that may make access to justice more difficult for those that cannot afford to engage a solicitor.

Not sure about the brainwashing.... cult..... purple pants tax evasion etc.

I never suggested otherwise. I know little about that law and don't think anything I've said would relate to that process as it stands.

I think maybe you chose the wrong person to respond to?

valleyoftheunos

ynotonavillus wrote: »

My point is that there are also people, sometimes vulnerable/desperate people, being helped by others (non professionals) in situations where there is no con or abuse of the court process going on.

Care should be taken not to to overstate the threat from the real nutters, in a manner that may make access to justice more difficult for those that cannot afford to engage a solicitor.

Not sure about the brainwashing.... cult..... purple pants tax evasion etc.

Unfortunately the nutters are the ones publicizing what they are doing and seeking to reach a mass audience.

MilanPan!c

Honestly, at this point you have a relatively mainstream political candidate with access to the national media promoting a con artist, who is actively pushing a scam at OAP, and the desperate.

There's also basically no interest in this by law endorcement or the media.

The only people at all trying to make people aware of this problem are about 5-6 bloggers and maybe two indie journalists.

The threat at this point far outweighs any potential future danger that might come out of some potential legislation/rules.

cml387

I know of Marcus McKeown, we were subject to his "empowering" at a course once.

You may not know of his association with Jim Corr...

http://www.sovereignindependent.com/paper/Sovereign_Independent_Issue2.pdf

MilanPan!c

cml387 wrote: »

I know of Marcus McKeown, we were subject to his "empowering" at a course once.

You may not know of his association with Jim Corr...

http://www.sovereignindependent.com/paper/Sovereign_Independent_Issue2.pdf

Excellent stuff... in a wholly depressing way...



So remember, this guy, Marcus McKeown, his book is being given away with each donation to Ben Gilroy's campaign. That book promises that you can stop paying all debt using "sovereign citizen" tricks. In actual facts, using those tricks can land people in much bigger trouble.

If you need help McKeown can also "life coach" you - for a fee, or you can go to one of his seminars - for a fee, to learn all about these tricks.

After all, to quote McKeown, "all debt, like all reality is an illusion".

Oh and, Vote for Ben Gilroy.

blueythebear

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Excellent stuff... in a wholly depressing way...



So remember, this guy, Marcus McKeown, his book is being given away with each donation to Ben Gilroy's campaign. That book promises that you can stop paying all debt using "sovereign citizen" tricks. In actual facts, using those tricks can land people in much bigger trouble.

If you need help McKeown can also "life coach" you - for a fee, or you can go to one of his seminars - for a fee, to learn all about these tricks.

After all, to quote McKeown, "all debt, like all reality is an illusion".

Oh and, Vote for Ben Gilroy.

I have been down in the Four Courts on many occasions. I have seen Mr Gilroy in action and in fairness to him, I do believe he has the best of intentions when helping Defendants. However, he appears to do one thing and one thing only and that is to increase the eventual costs order imposed against Defendants by necessitating multiple adjournments of cases.

In relation to Direct Democracy Ireland, I have had a look at their website and I cannot see how on earth they could implement this direct democracy lark. They keep referring to 75,000 signatures to force a constitutional referendum? How on earth would one verify that this is 75,000 genuine signatures? Perhaps a referendum on a referendum? They also refer to reneging on the bailout and stopping payments in relation to it as it is apparently, illegal and they say that they can prove this as a matter of law. I'd love to see what eminent Senior Counsel gave that opinion!

Back on topic.... I haven't seen much in the way of Freemanism in the press these days. I wonder have they given up!

valleyoftheunos

blueythebear wrote: »

I have been down in the Four Courts on many occasions. I have seen Mr Gilroy in action and in fairness to him, I do believe he has the best of intentions when helping Defendants. However, he appears to do one thing and one thing only and that is to increase the eventual costs order imposed against Defendants by necessitating multiple adjournments of cases.

I don't buy into this McKenzie friend thing. If you want to help people as a legal practitioner do it the right way, train as a Solicitor or Barrister.

blueythebear

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I don't buy into this McKenzie friend thing. If you want to help people as a legal practitioner do it the right way, train as a Solicitor or Barrister.

I'd wholeheartedly agree. The McKenzie friend process in alot of cases, would be similar to me, with no medical training whatsoever (other than perhaps some experience hanging around hospitals) attempting to verbally instruct you in performing surgery on yourself, because not being a qualified doctor, I am prohibited from performing the operation on you myself.

MilanPan!c

blueythebear wrote: »

Back on topic.... I haven't seen much in the way of Freemanism in the press these days. I wonder have they given up!

DDI is run by two "freeman," so... they've been in the press plenty, just in a less obvious way...

valleyoftheunos

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I don't buy into this McKenzie friend thing. If you want to help people as a legal practitioner do it the right way, train as a Solicitor or Barrister.

blueythebear wrote: »

I'd wholeheartedly agree. The McKenzie friend process in alot of cases, would be similar to me, with no medical training whatsoever (other than perhaps some experience hanging around hospitals) attempting to verbally instruct you in performing surgery on yourself, because not being a qualified doctor, I am prohibited from performing the operation on you myself.

That's not what McKenzie friends are for. (Quaere: Is there a joke here in -"What are friends for?")

They are essentially like lay solicitors while the litigant themselves is like a lay advocate or barrister in a trial. The McKenzie friend is supposed to be there to keep notes, pass documents and generally assist the litigant with their case.

They are NOT there to give legal advice. In theory at least.

MilanPan!c

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what McKenzie friends are for. (Quaere: Is there a joke here in -"What are friends for?")

They are essentially like lay solicitors while the litigant themselves is like a lay advocate or barrister in a trial. The McKenzie friend is supposed to be there to keep notes, pass documents and generally assist the litigant with their case.

They are NOT there to give legal advice. In theory at least.

Would it be illegal to sell your services as a "friend"?

MilanPan!c

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Would it be illegal to sell your services as a "friend"?

Often had the same thought. They're most likely liable to the litigant if they're getting paid.

valleyoftheunos

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what McKenzie friends are for. (Quaere: Is there a joke here in -"What are friends for?")

They are essentially like lay solicitors while the litigant themselves is like a lay advocate or barrister in a trial. The McKenzie friend is supposed to be there to keep notes, pass documents and generally assist the litigant with their case.

They are NOT there to give legal advice. In theory at least.

Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a "Lay Solicitor" or "Lay practitioner", solicitors give advice, that is their purpose. Whatever they call themselves, this thread has plenty of examples of people describing themselves as such a "Friend" and then getting to their feet seeking to address the Court.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Would it be illegal to sell your services as a "friend"?

Yes

Deleted User wrote: »

Often had the same thought. They're most likely liable to the litigant if they're getting paid.

Who Knows! maybe they are maybe they aren't. That is why the provision of legal services is so regulated.

valleyoftheunos

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a "Lay Solicitor" or "Lay practitioner", solicitors give advice, that is their purpose. Whatever they call themselves, this thread has plenty of examples of people describing themselves as such a "Friend" and then getting to their feet seeking to address the Court.

I know there is no such thing I was simply using the terms to illustrate what a McKenzie friend actually is. McKenzie friend is to lay litigant as solicitor is to barrister. Better?

Also the reason they get on their feet and address the Court is because practitioners traditionally don't raise objections to this and, if they wanted to, quite often don't know the law in the area. On the other side of that certain judges won't entertain an objection on a McKenzie friend basis as they think it isn't fair on the litigant in person.

valleyoftheunos

Deleted User wrote: »

I know there is no such thing I was simply using the terms to illustrate what a McKenzie friend actually is. McKenzie friend is to lay litigant as solicitor is to barrister. Better?

No not really, I object to any comparison being made between the two. A McKenzie Friend shouldn't be described as, or compared to any sort of Lawyer as that is simply not their role. McKenzie Friends were not allowed by the courts to act as some sort of alternative legal representation but rather to provide moral as well as practical support and advice.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also the reason they get on their feet and address the Court is because practitioners traditionally don't raise objections to this and, if they wanted to, quite often don't know the law in the area. On the other side of that certain judges won't entertain an objection on a McKenzie friend basis as they think it isn't fair on the litigant in person.

Its quite clear that McKenzie friends don't have a right to address the court, and I'm sure that someone acting as a genuine McKenzie Friend wouldn't seek to. No Counsel wants to be seen as overly aggressive or obstinate in relation to such matters, hence the lack of objections.

My real problem is with people who use the idea of a McKenzie friend to gain access to proceedings but have sold themselves to the litigant or defendant as an alternative form of representative.

Robbo

Whilst not at all involving Freemanism, here's a recent judgment rejecting the use of a McKenzie "Superfriend". Bonus points awarded for putting "our former Colonial Rulers" into an exotically worded affidavit and the awesomely named environmentalist, Percy Podger.

MilanPan!c

McKeown claims a McKenzie friend's role is "speaking on behalf of or representing" a "friend".

That seems inaccurate, yes?

He also says, somewhat cryptically:

"I've never been able to find a way to get them to bring me into court."

valleyoftheunos

Robbo wrote: »

Whilst not at all involving Freemanism, here's a recent judgment rejecting the use of a McKenzie "Superfriend". Bonus points awarded for putting "our former Colonial Rulers" into an exotically worded affidavit and the awesomely named environmentalist, Percy Podger.

Excellent Judgement, Mr Podger is exactly the sort of "Superfriend" I take issue with. He orchestrates an action yet crucially would face no liability for the otherside's costs if an order as to costs was made against the appellants.

On the reguklation of the legal profession more generally, the quotation of the master of the rolls is particularly useful.

Master of the Rolls wrote:

“The public interest requires that the courts shall be able to have absolute trust in the advocates who appear before them. The only interest and duty of the judge is to seek to do justice in accordance with the law. The interest of the parties is to seek a favourable decision and their duty is limited to complying with the rules of the court, giving truthful testimony and refraining from taking positive steps to deceive the court. The interest and duty of the advocate is much more complex, because it involves divided loyalties. He wishes to promote his client's interests and it is his duty to do so by all legitimate means. But he also has an interest in the proper administration of justice, to which his profession is dedicated, and he owes a duty to the court to assist in ensuring that this is achieved. The potential for conflict between these interests and duties is very considerable, yet the public interest in the administration of justice requires that they be resolved in accordance with established professional rules and conventions and that the judges shall be in a position to assume that they are being so resolved. There is thus an overriding public interest in the maintenance amongst advocates not only of a general standard of probity, but of a high professional standard, involving a skilled appreciation of how conflicts of duty are to be resolved.


These high standards of skill and probity are not capable of being maintained without peer leadership and pressures and appropriate disciplinary systems and the difficulty of maintaining them increases with any increase in the size of the group who are permitted to practise advocacy before the courts.”

and the paragraph following it

Fennelly J wrote:

It would be inimical to the integrity of the justice system to open to unqualified persons the same rights of audience and representation as are conferred by the law on duly qualified barristers and solicitors. Every member of each of those professions undergoes an extended and rigorous period of legal and professional training and sits demanding examinations in the law and legal practice and procedure, including ethical standards. Barristers and solicitors are respectively subject in their practice to and bound by extensive and detailed codes of professional conduct. Each profession has established a complete and active system of profession discipline. Members of the professions are liable to potentially severe penalties if they transgress.

Now lets get this thread back onto genuine Freemanism!:D

MilanPan!c

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Now lets get this thread back onto genuine Freemanism!:D

Hilariously, there was a Freeman defender on P.ie today claiming that the "freeman" were involved in the founding of the Irish state (despite the fact that the movement wasn't founded until the 1970s and wasn't renamed "freeman" until the 90s).

Crazy.

valleyoftheunos

P.ie?

Pawwed Rig

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Hilariously, there was a Freeman defender on P.ie today claiming that the "freeman" were involved in the founding of the Irish state (despite the fact that the movement wasn't founded until the 1970s and wasn't renamed "freeman" until the 90s).

Crazy.

link?

MilanPan!c

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

P.ie?

Politics.ie

MilanPan!c

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

link?

"All this talk of sovereignty, these damn freemen were part of the 1916 rising. God help us all."

http://www.politics.ie/forum/elections/207565-direct-democracy-ireland-claims-have-4-000-members-11-offices-94.html#post6640454

MilanPan!c

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/ad-from-the-christian-solidarity-party-urging-voters-in-meath-east-to-vote-for-ben-gilroy-of-direct-democracy-ireland/

the plot thicks.

Sulla Felix

MilanPan!c wrote: »

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/ad-from-the-christian-solidarity-party-urging-voters-in-meath-east-to-vote-for-ben-gilroy-of-direct-democracy-ireland/

the plot thicks.

Can be trusted on the abortion issue. And here I was naively thinking that a group who want less interference by the ' man' in their lives would be liberal on social issues.

MilanPan!c

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Can be trusted on the abortion issue. And here I was naively thinking that a group who want less interference by the ' man' in their lives would be liberal on social issues.

It's FreeMAN not FreeWOMAN.

MilanPan!c

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Can be trusted on the abortion issue. And here I was naively thinking that a group who want less interference by the ' man' in their lives would be liberal on social issues.

Alternate response:

If you get 2.5% of the population to sign a petition, you can then get a referendum on your specific abortion. If the majority of voters decide you can have an abortion, then sure, it's grand.

Pawwed Rig

I would consider Ben Gilroy more of an activist than a politician tbh. People like him often become popular by standing up for those less fortunate than oourselves and putting themselves on the line in the process (Tony Gregory is a prime example of this). Whether he has thought too hard on the Freeman bit is anyones guess, it may just be that the group has common cause.