Freeman Megamerge

Losty Dublin

MilanPan!c wrote: »

One of the biggest (non-) surprises of Freemanism/the Soverign Citizens is that they attract rich folks... which shouldn't really be a surprise, because if there's a potential way for rich people to avoid taxes, mortgages, etc., then some of them will try it.

Think - Chuck made 40K in a day up in Newry... god knows that wasn't 400 people giving him a grand...

Which brings the point up; why is on the run Allen writing letters trying to affect a case featuring another no show merchant in court?

Do you reckon than Smith or Allen are merely chancing arms with this or do you think that there may a bit more formal arrangement between them? (edit) I am aware that Smith has paid into the trust but even still....

I still can't see much tactical merit in it for Allen though I take your point of wanting to save money in some way, shape or form. Better ways of doing it, though.

Are the trust fee's deductable by Revenue?

MilanPan!c

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Which brings the point up; why is on the run Allen writing letters trying to affect a case featuring another no show merchant in court?

Do you reckon than Smith or Allen are merely chancing arms with this or do you think that there may a bit more formal arrangement between them? (edit) I am aware that Smith has paid into the trust but even still....

I still can't see much tactical merit in it for Allen though I take your point of wanting to save money in some way, shape or form. Better ways of doing it, though.

Are the trust fee's deductable by Revenue?

Well. It's - and this is just a guess, but - it's not a bad business move for a con man: he can show he's doing his bit for their money, that the courts are "desperate" to try and demean him because his con - err.. "Scheme" is so powerfully amazing, and it aligns him with rich folks, making him seem more legitimate.

So from a con mans perspective it's smart. Plus of course it's more free national press.

Remember, to quote a comment on Ben Gilroys Facebook page, "When you [Ben] end up in an illegal court you know you are doing something right."

This is part of the "cult" aspect of this phenomena.

Edit: remember as well that these folks see themselves, or at least they sell themselves as being persecuted by the crooks in power.

So, even a failure is a roaring success for their con.

Edit 2: as for their being other ways for them to dodge debt, well... No doubt many have multiple schemes to avoid debts. This is just another cheap (relative to "potential" return) scam worth a punt. "You can't win if you don't play."

Edit 3: it should also be noted that many of these guys are - for lack of a better term - "scamming themselves". They tried these scams themselves in courts, even though they knew they were bogus. Somehow the ability to self-delude is strong than the knowledge that they're full of ****. So. This movement is made up of suckers, con men, and true believer con men, that are both scamming people and are also trying to use these scams for themselves - and ending up in prison in the process. It's a weird weird thing.

Losty Dublin

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Well. It's - and this is just a guess, but - it's not a bad business move for a con man: he can show he's doing his bit for their money, that the courts are "desperate" to try and demean him because his con - err.. "Scheme" is so powerfully amazing, and it aligns him with rich folks, making him seem more legitimate.

So from a con mans perspective it's smart. Plus of course it's more free national press.

Remember, to quote a comment on Ben Gilroys Facebook page, "When you [Ben] end up in an illegal court you know you are doing something right."

This is part of the "cult" aspect of this phenomena.

Fair point though I personally feel that he probably could have handled this better and for his own self gain.

On a side note, there was a report in the media last week (Irish Times I think but I can't find a link) and the figures of repossession orders was listed in same. It was nowhere near the hundreds a month that they'd want us to believe, sshhhhhh

MilanPan!c

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Fair point though I personally feel that he probably could have handled this better and for his own self gain.

On a side note, there was a report in the media last week (Irish Times I think but I can't find a link) and the figures of repossession orders was listed in same. It was nowhere near the hundreds a month that they'd want us to believe, sshhhhhh

There's no doubt that pretty much every way they could handle this is better than the Chuck way.

donvito99

The Freemen movement reminds me of this sketch.

donvito99

RTÉ tweet:

A four-year-old Polish boy who had been reported missing in Cork has been located safe and well

Robbo

Piece in the Cork Independent about the failed lynch mob "community court" in the sacred chakra of Ballyphehane.

MilanPan!c

Robbo wrote: »

Piece in the Cork Independent about the failed lynch mob "community court" in the sacred chakra of Ballyphehane.

Thanks for the link. That article contained a link to this page, which I hadn't seen before:

http://factsaresacred.ie/politics/the-incredible-freeman-credo/

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

returnNull

Surely setting up an idependent court is illegal?

Or maybe the guards just know they are all as mad as a bag of cats:pac:

CorkIndependent wrote:

The summons stated to the 17 people that “your failure to attend shall be accepted by éire court as your agreement all complaints by (name) are true and you do agree to forthwith and without any further notice forfeit to (name) your ESTATE and further do agree to forthwith leave éire and never return and you do accept all penalties decided by éire court”.

Lol

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Piece in the Cork Independent about the failed lynch mob "community court" in the sacred chakra of Ballyphehane.

This should be enough to warrant another video. Outlaw Gardaí, you have been warned

johnnyskeleton

returnNull wrote: »

Surely setting up an idependent court is illegal?

Or maybe the guards just know they are all as mad as a bag of cats:pac:


Lol

Only the courts established by law can dispense justice under article 34. Holding a "court" is not a criminal offence or prohibited but it's decisions have no legal effect. If they try to enforce their orders, it will not be a defence to any criminal acts done in such enforcement.

NavyandBlue

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Only the courts established by law can dispense justice under article 34. Holding a "court" is not a criminal offence or prohibited but it's decisions have no legal effect. If they try to enforce their orders, it will not be a defence to any criminal acts done in such enforcement.

I'm fairly sure the activities of these morons would fall foul of sections 6 and 18 of OATSA 1939, no?

johnnyskeleton

NavyandBlue wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the activities of these morons would fall foul of sections 6 and 18 of OATSA 1939, no?

Now you say it, I suppose they could. It would be a bit heavy handed though and you would have to establish that they are usurping or unlawfully exercising the courts functions

NavyandBlue

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Now you say it, I suppose they could. It would be a bit heavy handed though and you would have to establish that they are usurping or unlawfully exercising the courts functions

You could probably argue that punishing anybody for a crime (either real or more likely imaginary :P) by a jury of their peers is a function solely for the courts. It would be a total joke if these lunatics could escape prosecution on the basis that they are not usurping the court's jurisdiction because a lawfully established court would never try these particular "defendants" for these particular "crimes".

Regarding the heavy handed comment, you're probably right there. I suppose you would be risking martyrisation of them by declaring them an unlawful organisation. But the whole thing is just so, so ludicrous that there would probably be next to no public backlash from pursuing such a course of action.

ArmaniJeanss

BenGilroys and DDI's facebooks saying that Tom Darcy has won his case against the banks in the Supreme Court in the last few hours.
This true?

rameire

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

BenGilroys and DDI's facebooks saying that Tom Darcy has won his case against the banks in the Supreme Court in the last few hours.
This true?

It supposedly happened on Wednesday.

rameire

Based on Tom Darcys Facebook page. They set aside the possession order.

joela

Can someone explain what this means please? Shall I just stop paying my mortgage now? :mad:

jd

Looking at Ben Gilroy's page

Dear friends My heart is soaring. My good friend Tom Darcy a lay litigant in the Supreme Court won his case against the banks, with costs. The bank have already sold some of Tom’s property and he shall be seeking damages for same.

Tom Darcy says

To all Facebook friends, today the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled in my favour and set aside the possession order on my family home. This was extensively due to the points ventilated by New Beginnings, (Ross & Vincent) who came on board to represent my wife’s rights and Steven Moran Barrister who represented me. Special thank you to the solicitors Mc Hale & Muldoon ( Michael Muldoon) and Whelan & Murtagh solicitors (Grainne Whelan), and a special thank you to all who have supported me in the last four years, please post.

Isn't Ben to have his affidavit in today?

whippet

rameire wrote: »

Based on Tom Darcys Facebook page. They set aside the possession order.

set aside? is that just an adjournment?

if so these DDI heads would celebrate a fart that didn't wet the cloth !!

Pro Hoc Vice

joela wrote: »

Can someone explain what this means please? Shall I just stop paying my mortgage now? :mad:

I was in Court some months back when I believe this case was mentioned. If its the same case it was not Mr. Darcey's case it was his wife. The case was not based on freeman stuff but was a simple case, did the wife give consent under the Family Home Protection Act. she said she did not give any consent freely. The SC on the day I was there, said this was the only good point in the case. It is a win for legal argument, as from what I remember the case was a good one. The only reservation the Court had was that the Husband was acting for the wife who based her claim on undue influence as against the husband.

johnnyskeleton

Well the courts website shows that the appeal was allowed with costs to the defendant, so I guess the represented wife won.

rameire

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well the courts website shows that the appeal was allowed with costs to the defendant, so I guess the represented wife won.

can I ask where you found the details for this case, im going mad looking for it and cant see it anywhere.
cheers

Pro Hoc Vice

rameire wrote: »

can I ask where you found the details for this case, im going mad looking for it and cant see it anywhere.
cheers

Its on the courts High Courts Search, court reference 2010/539 SP. You will see that the second named defendant engaged a solicitor in June of this year.

The relevant info about the SC decision

13/11/2013 Supreme Court (final) Allow appeal adj Pl H Remit HCt C to Ds v Pl

The SC gave a temporary stay on repo back in May.

johnnyskeleton

rameire wrote: »

can I ask where you found the details for this case, im going mad looking for it and cant see it anywhere.
cheers

I used my mad computer skills and a process of divination to...uh, what infosys said.

MilanPan!c

The near complete ILAM saga from our friends at the CLS. All from their latest missive.

Gotta love the advice he gives where he instructs people to refer to their mortgage, when dealing with banks, as their, "alleged mortgage".

I suppose when the banks reposes their "alleged house" it'll be fine, as it was only an "alleged roof" over their "alleged heads"...

Losty Dublin

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Gotta love the advice he gives where he instructs people to refer to their mortgage, when dealing with banks, as their, "alleged mortgage".

I suppose when the banks reposes their "alleged house" it'll be fine, as it was only an "alleged roof" over their "alleged heads"...

Not to mention an alleged repossession

Hippo

Saw Mr Gilroy in the Round Hall yesterday coming out of Court 3 with a mate, both looking very pleased with themselves. What can it portend?

Robbo

Paul Codd is still on the lam but can at least cash in his €€€s from the unauthorised use of his protected name.