Freeman Megamerge

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

As I understand it, the going rate for freemen is much higher than the going rate for a barrister for any given appearance.

Fred Swanson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Do we have a source for the bench warrants story?

Only one I can see is David Hall

Losty Dublin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As of yet all I can find are a couple of internet posts that say that warrants were issued for Gilroy and McDermott on foot of breaching a court order of trespass; Allen's wasn't issued over some clarification of his address. If this is the case, is it just to bring them in to court to answer the alleged breach?

Given their colorful natures then these lads won't be too long laying with their heads down

jd

If anyone can bring themselves to buy the Mail on Sunday, there are a couple of pages on the Rodolphus Trust with a bit about the Freeman of the Land movement. It also reveals that DJ Carey's sister is involved.

Marve

Breaking Video -

Released by one of the Anon Groups on FB, who are exposing the Mob on the day at the stud farm, here's the video of the security guard being attacked, his fone taken from him as he rings for help. It's spreading across the threads like wildfire.
Ben is on the run in Northern Ireland, to escape being held in remand until friday, he even said on his facebook that he must say goodbye to his son,(on facebook) as the state have seperated a family. (he just crossed into NI ''to build his defense'') LOL

jd

Blog from someone who was at the court on Friday
http://awakenlongford.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/trust-in-the-high-court-generally-no-today-definitely-not/

Why did Charlie Allen not show up today?

He had the opportunity to enter the “arena” and prove himself.

Well I believe he didn’t show up for the same reason he didn’t show up for the Fallon’s from Longford.

He couldn’t!

And a comment on the blog..

Austin you are entitled to your opinion however that does not mean you are correct, yes Charlie Allen did not turn up today.However I can assure you 100 per cent he will be in court next week,I am not A spokes person for the trust.Sometimes when you are playing a game of chess you have got to sacrifice a few pawns to throw the opposition off

So who are the pawns in the "Trust"'s little games?

Marve

I think they had issues with the warrant over Charlie's residential address. (they just didn't know where he was holding out).

AustinB

Marve wrote: »

Breaking Video -

Released by one of the Anon Groups on FB, who are exposing the Mob on the day at the stud farm, here's the video of the security guard being attacked, his fone taken from him as he rings for help. It's spreading across the threads like wildfire.
Ben is on the run in Northern Ireland, to escape being held in remand until friday, he even said on his facebook that he must say goodbye to his son,(on facebook) as the state have seperated a family. (he just crossed into NI ''to build his defense'') LOL

Ben is not on the run to avoid being held on remand till friday, counsel for the receivers made a point of asking for liberty from the court to have Ben brought before whatever duty judge is available due to the long vacation, so as to avoid Ben having to be held on remand in a cell until friday, nice gesture I would say

returnNull

AustinB wrote: »

Ben is not on the run to avoid being held on remand till friday, counsel for the receivers made a point of asking for liberty from the court to have Ben brought before whatever duty judge is available due to the long vacation, so as to avoid Ben having to be held on remand in a cell until friday, nice gesture I would say

any proof of this or is it your opinion?

You've a strange posting history...looking to set up a charity for people who are getting their house repossesed...a few posts about old english law and more recently a post on bank appointed recievers.My freeman of the land bolloxology senser is jumping here beside me!!

And then your post gives the impression you know ben or are a spokesman for him.Well?

jd

returnNull wrote: »

any proof of this or is it your opinion?

You've a strange posting history...looking to set up a charity for people who are getting their house repossesed...a few posts about old english law and more recently a post on bank appointed recievers.My freeman of the land bolloxology senser is jumping here beside me!!

And then your post gives the impression you know ben or are a spokesman for him.Well?

I think Austin runs the Awaken Longford site, which is extremely critical of Gilroy and Freeman Bolloxology.

returnNull

jd wrote: »

I think Austin runs the Awaken Longford site, which is extremely critical of Gilroy and Freeman Bolloxology.

Im badly wrong then.Appologies.

*shakes freeman of the land bolloxology senser.'get it right ffs'*

AustinB

I was in Court on Friday, so that's my proof, my question on Bank appointed receivers is just that, a question, I simply want to know why a Bank inserts a middle man into the process, the answer could be as simple as, applying the Banks seal to the Deed of Appointment is just to much of a pain in the a**, but then again it might be more serious.
I read a lot of the comments on this and other threads and in the interest of clarity regarding earlier Freeman v Bank of Scotland, the only connection to the "Freeman" codology is the name, the plaintiffs just happen to unfortunately go by the surname Freeman.
Their case is important and does not in any way rely on freeman ideology, they are litigants in person only because they cannot afford representation, they are however being helped by a proven "next friend" or McKensie whichever term one wants to use along with some researchers.
This whole "Kilkenny Trust" thing and Charlie Allen is devastating to all Lay Litigants and groups who are questioning everything from a healthy, constructive point of view, we need people who engage in this manner, unfortunately the Financial meltdown has provided distressed borrowers in abundance, a large segment of whom, will attach to dodgy schemes that promise the magic solution, this not entirely their fault and they ought not to be castigated excessively rather, the perpetrators of these disgusting schemes should be exposed and brought to justice post haste and the people provided with real, sustainable solutions. The fact that this is not happening is a further example of the failure of public representatives and enforcement agencies.
Roll on next friday, when we will see one of two things happen, a. Allen will again, fail to show up in Court or b. he will arrive with a bulls**t freeman orchestrated defence, either way he will fail because this Trust Boloxology is as the legal profession would describe it, VOID AB INITIO (hope my spelling is right, lest I incur the wrath of the omnipresent spellcheck police), and finally yes I contribute as much as I can, my tuppence worth to the Awaken Longford Blog.

AustinB

AustinB wrote: »

I read a lot of the comments on this and other threads and in the interest of clarity regarding earlier Freeman v Bank of Scotland, the only connection to the "Freeman" codology is the name, the plaintiffs just happen to unfortunately go by the surname Freeman.
Their case is important and does not in any way rely on freeman ideology, they are litigants in person only because they cannot afford representation, they are however being helped by a proven "next friend" or McKensie whichever term one wants to use along with some researchers.

This isn't entirely true from my understanding of it.

Also I thought the "proven next friend" is Mr. Gilroy.

jd

AustinB wrote: »

I read a lot of the comments on this and other threads and in the interest of clarity regarding earlier Freeman v Bank of Scotland, the only connection to the "Freeman" codology is the name, the plaintiffs just happen to unfortunately go by the surname Freeman.
Their case is important and does not in any way rely on freeman ideology,

I'm not sure I can agree on that one.

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/DF184C75E110FE3480257BC8004DF318?Open&Highlight=0,freeman,~language_en~

In Meads, Associate Chief Justice Rooke stated that such arguments are often advanced by a particular type of vexatious litigant which he termed ‘Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants’. He described these arguments as ‘fanciful’ and ‘completely devoid of merit’ and said they are often made by distressed litigants, particularly those who find themselves in financial difficulty, acting under pressure and on the instruction of organised groups or individuals who have a vested interest in disrupting court operations and frustrating the legal rights of governments, corporations and individuals.

Conclusion
35. I must stress that the jurisdiction to strike out proceedings is not one that the Court exercises lightly. Right of access to the courts should be preserved if at all possible and in arriving at my decision the benefit of any doubt always lay with the plaintiffs, who, like many property-owners throughout the country, find themselves in a very unfortunate situation. However, I have carefully considered the pleadings, affidavits and submissions made by both parties and have come to the conclusion that only the issues as raised by the plaintiffs’ in relation to securitisation and alleged non-compliance with Central Bank Codes meet the low threshold required in allowing these issues to proceed to be litigated. The remaining heads of claim as advanced by plaintiffs must be struck out pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the basis that they are frivolous and vexatious and have no prospect of succeeding.

AustinB

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't entirely true from my understanding of it.

Also I thought the "proven next friend" is Mr. Gilroy.

This is entirely true, and Mr Gilroy is most certainly not! the next friend, he did show up in Court for one, maybe two days but that is it. Ben Gilroy goes to a lot of Court hearings, it is not correct to attach him as the next friend for that reason alone.

Robbo

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't entirely true from my understanding of it.

Also I thought the "proven next friend" is Mr. Gilroy.

Ben's certainly claimed to have had a hand in it. Then again, he does make some fanciful other claims in that post which don't tally with the written judgment. Or reality.

AustinB

AustinB wrote: »

This is entirely true, and Mr Gilroy is most certainly not! the next friend, he did show up in Court for one, maybe two days but that is it. Ben Gilroy goes to a lot of Court hearings, it is not correct to attach him as the next friend for that reason alone.

Robbo wrote: »

Ben's certainly claimed to have had a hand in it. Then again, he does make some fanciful other claims in that post which don't tally with the written judgment. Or reality.

I knew he had claimed to be involved alright.

The Freeman's definitely have some freeman-of-the-land nonsense going on. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the Judge who heard them:

Gilligan J from Freeman v Bank of Scotland wrote:

The ‘creation of currency’
29. At para. 10 of the statement of claim, the plaintiffs allege that the “first named defendants misled and deceived the plaintiffs by offering what the plaintiffs understood to be a ‘loan of money’, when in fact the first named defendants did not ‘lend’ the funds, they instead created the funds with the Plaintiff’s signatures on a loan application” [Emphasis in original]. In support of this argument the plaintiffs seek to rely on the affidavit of a Mr. Walker F. Todd which discusses what he calls “a common misconception about the nature of money” and states –

“In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the banks) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers.” [Emphasis in original]
30. This affidavit was sworn in unrelated proceedings in the United States. This Court has no knowledge of those proceedings, the facts and issues of the particular case, and the context in which the affidavit was made and accordingly the Court attaches no weight to it. The Court accepts the submission by counsel for the defendants that this ‘creation of currency’ argument resembles the so-called ‘money for nothing schemes’ discussed in Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571. Such arguments are coming before the Courts in numerous jurisdictions with increasing frequency since the economic and property market collapse. In Meads, Associate Chief Justice Rooke stated that such arguments are often advanced by a particular type of vexatious litigant which he termed ‘Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants’. He described these arguments as ‘fanciful’ and ‘completely devoid of merit’ and said they are often made by distressed litigants, particularly those who find themselves in financial difficulty, acting under pressure and on the instruction of organised groups or individuals who have a vested interest in disrupting court operations and frustrating the legal rights of governments, corporations and individuals.
31. It is also important to note that the funds in question, regardless of how they were allegedly ‘created’, were drawn down by the plaintiffs and, as stated in the statement of claim, were spent on the refurbishment and upkeep of the properties or however else the plaintiffs saw fit. The nature of the loan agreement between the parties was clear and unambiguous and was willingly signed for by the plaintiffs who were aware of their obligations and responsibilities. For that reason, I am of the view that the plaintiffs’ claim in relation to the ‘creation of currency’ argument is frivolous, vexations and bound to fail and is therefore struck out.

OPCA litigant is a polite way of referring to the numerous varieties of bull**** nonsense we refer to here as being a Freeman-on-the-Land. So it's not my opinion that the Freeman's had a ring of this crap to them, it was the judge's also.

AustinB

jd wrote: »

I'm not sure I can agree on that one.

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/DF184C75E110FE3480257BC8004DF318?Open&Highlight=0,freeman,~language_en~

Questioning the "Creation of Money" and the provenence of "Fractional Reserve Banking" has been branded in most western jurisdictions as " Freeman", "vexatious" and devoid of merit, I do not subscribe to that view and it is my right to lawfully and respectfully challenge these beliefs in the Courts and anywhere else if I so desire. I am not a stupid person, I understand the magnitude and monumental challenge this view presents, that does not deter me and should not result in a prejudicial branding of me as a crackpot.
Bank of Scotland have pulled off a scam of truly enormous proportions by exporting between 30 and 36 billion of losses to the UK where their parent organisation uses morsels of these losses each year to avoid tax, which in turn, multiplies the contribution the UK taxpayers have made to bailout Irish losses, the accounts of BOSI for 2010 where sealed by the Irish Courts to cover up the total insolvency of the Bank and in turn the Scottish Court of Sessions in closed session,(not public) which rubberstamped the Cross Border Merger of BOSI and BOS UK also sealed the 2010 accounts, this is an affront to all taxpayers, both here and in the UK but no different to the overall treatment of the Irish people by all Banks here and assisted by the last Government and the current Government. My challenge and the Freeman challenge to the Banks is valid and in the Freeman case the challenge to the Bank was a direct attempt to see the accounting in relation to specific loans which was successfully argued by the opposing counsel as the Freeman/Creation of Money argument, I firmly believe this matter will end up before a Court, maybe not here but somewhere else maybe and rightly so in my humble opinion for these errant Banks must be brought under control for no other reason than ensuring the same does not happen again. (forgive any spelling mistakes, its late)

johnnyskeleton

AustinB wrote: »

Questioning the "Creation of Money" and the provenence of "Fractional Reserve Banking" has been branded in most western jurisdictions as " Freeman", "vexatious" and devoid of merit, I do not subscribe to that view and it is my right to lawfully and respectfully challenge these beliefs in the Courts and anywhere else if I so desire. I am not a stupid person, I understand the magnitude and monumental challenge this view presents, that does not deter me and should not result in a prejudicial branding of me as a crackpot.
Bank of Scotland have pulled off a scam of truly enormous proportions by exporting between 30 and 36 billion of losses to the UK where their parent organisation uses morsels of these losses each year to avoid tax, which in turn, multiplies the contribution the UK taxpayers have made to bailout Irish losses, the accounts of BOSI for 2010 where sealed by the Irish Courts to cover up the total insolvency of the Bank and in turn the Scottish Court of Sessions in closed session,(not public) which rubberstamped the Cross Border Merger of BOSI and BOS UK also sealed the 2010 accounts, this is an affront to all taxpayers, both here and in the UK but no different to the overall treatment of the Irish people by all Banks here and assisted by the last Government and the current Government. My challenge and the Freeman challenge to the Banks is valid and in the Freeman case the challenge to the Bank was a direct attempt to see the accounting in relation to specific loans which was successfully argued by the opposing counsel as the Freeman/Creation of Money argument, I firmly believe this matter will end up before a Court, maybe not here but somewhere else maybe and rightly so in my humble opinion for these errant Banks must be brought under control for no other reason than ensuring the same does not happen again. (forgive any spelling mistakes, its late)

Supposing I tell you I will lend you up to €500 whenever you need it, subject to my own available funds and you agree.

What's illegal about that?

Fractional reserve banking is the same thing on a grander scale.

And if UK company law allows BOSI to write off their irish losses against their UK tax, what's wrong with that? Specifically, why should that affect your private dealings with a bank here?

I'm not saying you are indebted. I'm not saying the system of banking is immune from challenge. But I am saying that anyone who tries to avoid paying their debts by brining a collateral challenge to the way banks do business is not fighting a noble battle against the banks but is trying to get out of their own trouble by means of a distraction or sideshow

Tom Young

Circuit Court recently.

Poor lay litigant (who may have paid for the advice) asked to see the banks licence in order to defend the indefensible.

Judge: Did you ask this question when you applied for the money, which you've just told me that you received?

Litigant: No judge.

Judge: Did you sign the loan documents on Affidavit?

Litigant: Yes judge.

Judge: Did you buy the item?

Litigant: Yes judge.

Judge: Very good. There will be Judgment in the full sum sought with an order for costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

AustinB

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Supposing I tell you I will lend you up to €500 whenever you need it, subject to my own available funds and you agree.

What's illegal about that?

Fractional reserve banking is the same thing on a grander scale.

And if UK company law allows BOSI to write off their irish losses against their UK tax, what's wrong with that? Specifically, why should that affect your private dealings with a bank here?

I'm not saying you are indebted. I'm not saying the system of banking is immune from challenge. But I am saying that anyone who tries to avoid paying their debts by brining a collateral challenge to the way banks do business is not fighting a noble battle against the banks but is trying to get out of their own trouble by means of a distraction or sideshow

Johnny, you are over simplifying a very complex matter, you are also invoking the "did you get the money? did you pay it back?" argument that normally short circuits arguments and that is entirely fine as long as the Bank is above reproach, it is not fair, equitable or acceptable for the Bank to drive a coach and four through the rules for its own benefit and then, seek to rely on the same rules also for its own benefit. Now I am tired and going to bed...thanks for the debate...I will follow up again when I have the opportunity, cheers

AustinB

Tom Young wrote: »

Circuit Court recently.

Poor lay litigant (who may have paid for the advice) asked to see the banks licence in order to defend the indefensible.

Judge: Did you ask this question when you applied for the money, which you've just told me that you received?

Litigant: No judge.

Judge: Did you sign the loan documents on Affidavit?

Litigant: Yes judge.

Judge: Did you buy the item?

Litigant: Yes judge.

Judge: Very good. There will be Judgment in the full sum sought with an order for costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

I am very familiar with this course of action...thanks

AustinB

AustinB wrote: »

Johnny, you are over simplifying a very complex matter, you are also invoking the "did you get the money? did you pay it back?" argument that normally short circuits arguments and that is entirely fine as long as the Bank is above reproach, it is not fair, equitable or acceptable for the Bank to drive a coach and four through the rules for its own benefit and then, seek to rely on the same rules also for its own benefit. Now I am tired and going to bed...thanks for the debate...I will follow up again when I have the opportunity, cheers

Even if the Banks did commit some sort of crime that doesn't vitiate the contract they had with a debtor.

It's not as complex as you think it is.

Robbo

I must take a picture of it when I'm going past next time but there's one of the usual "Stay in Your Home/Screw the Banks" stickers on a lamp-post at a Dublin City taxi rank which has had "Total Bollix" amended to it. One of the regulars at the rank appears has one of those "We the people" stickers on his bumper, as marketed by "King" Billy Maguire, holder of the Sovereign seal (with correct number of strings on the harp) of Ireland.

If one were feeling mischievous, you'd take his taxi and refuse to pay the other end, questioning his licence and the legitimacy of the taxi regulator.

johnnyskeleton

AustinB wrote: »

Johnny, you are over simplifying a very complex matter, you are also invoking the "did you get the money? did you pay it back?" argument that normally short circuits arguments and that is entirely fine as long as the Bank is above reproach, it is not fair, equitable or acceptable for the Bank to drive a coach and four through the rules for its own benefit and then, seek to rely on the same rules also for its own benefit. Now I am tired and going to bed...thanks for the debate...I will follow up again when I have the opportunity, cheers

But that's not very different to being charged with shoplifting and going on a big speil about the history of property rights and the unfair distribution of resources when those things aren't relevant to the question of whether you stole the goods or not.

You can repay the money and then challenge the fairness of the banks to your hearts content. But any technical issue with how they operate, even if it is a good point, doesn't change the facts of borrowing money and not paying it back.

Pro Hoc Vice

AustinB wrote: »

Johnny, you are over simplifying a very complex matter, you are also invoking the "did you get the money? did you pay it back?" argument that normally short circuits arguments and that is entirely fine as long as the Bank is above reproach, it is not fair, equitable or acceptable for the Bank to drive a coach and four through the rules for its own benefit and then, seek to rely on the same rules also for its own benefit. Now I am tired and going to bed...thanks for the debate...I will follow up again when I have the opportunity, cheers

The courts have a very good concept to deal with the majority of these arguments, its called unjust enrichment, to put it simply the court will not allow a person to be unfairly enriched because of some defect in the paperwork.

So if a person borrows money to buy a house, he gets the house but when asked to pay back the money there is some valid legal issue with the loan. The court may strike down the loan but under the doctrine of unjust enrichment they will say the money is still due. It may delay matters and cause headache for the bank but they will get judgement and get their security.

ronan45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxiXKrhl-bI

This Freeman Lark looks gas ! Must try it meself :pac:




Oh maybe not.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6uHYwbd__8

Losty Dublin

Did anybody else catch a piece on Morning Ireland about Allsop supposedly stopping auctioning repossessed homes in Ireland? I'm sure it will be on the RTE site later today and other media may report it as well.#

Doubtless, those who interupted their July auction in the name of Mr. Markeviekz (sic) will claim it as a heroic victory against the birth cert selling unsealed banks :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

ronan45 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxiXKrhl-bI

This Freeman Lark looks gas ! Must try it meself :pac:




Oh maybe not.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6uHYwbd__8

Commercial inger? Tort of lauremy?