Freeman Megamerge

Losty Dublin

Hippo wrote: »

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?

He was required to file some papers relating to his contempt hearing on 1/11. No doubts he handed them in and upon doing so he has declared it as being an acquittal, thus beating the corrupt system yet again.

jd

So what did happen in SC regarding Tom D'arcy

From one of hiss buddies FB page.

TOM DARCY AND HIS FAMILY HAVE WON THERE SUPREME COURT CASE AGAINST A.I.B ,,THE LEGAL BILL IS 17 MILLION EURO AND A.I.B. HAVE TO PAY IT ALL ,, I LOVE IT .


Supreme Court win, yes win,

I look at a documentary recently about Guantanamo Bay, inmates being tortured, horrific pain, cruelty beyond believe, then I looked at what the Irish Banks Have being allowed to do to every family in this country, including my family, threaten them, persecute them, torture them, evict them, bankrupt them, desecrate them, destroy them. My win in the Supreme Court of Ireland last Wednesday the 13th of November is a victory to every one of those families, we all broke no laws and committed no crimes, the bankers on the other hand broke every law and committed numerous crimes, but we their victims pay them our abusers? We their victims allow them our abusers immunity, Not one word published or reported, just like the criminal investigation by An Garda against the banks of this country, just like the issues of securitisation, just like irrefutable evidence the central bank of Ireland became the legal owner of all Irish banks in 2008 by contractual entittlenemnet. Just like the constitutional challenge we brought,
I’m but one man and I proved to the Supreme Court of Ireland the AIB was wrong, the Judge was wrong, the system was wrong, what the AIB have perpetrated against my family goes beyond torture, beyond pain, beyond cruelty. They destroyed my family. Destroyed my life, but they never, could never destroy or remove my relentless determination to fight back, my fight has just begun, please join me in removing the cancer that is our shameful Guantanamo Bay, the corrupt banking institutions and culpable government who have being shielded until now. Change is up to you, I’m but one person; imagine what we all could achieve if we just tried to unite, thank you all for your support and kindness. Please please post to all your friends,

Robbo

Obama bin Liner gave her life in Guantanamo Bay so that Tom D'arcy could stand up to the banks...

Pro Hoc Vice

jd wrote: »

So what did happen in SC regarding Tom D'arcy

From one of hiss buddies FB page.

See posts #2003 and 2006. There is no way the legal bill is 17 million as a solicitor only came on record a few months ago.

jd

infosys wrote: »

There is no way the legal bill is 17 million as a solicitor only came on record a few months ago.

Of course there isn't. That's what he owes AIB.

Pro Hoc Vice

jd wrote: »

Of course there isn't. That's what he owes AIB.

From the headline "THE LEGAL BILL IS 17 MILLION EURO AND A.I.B. HAVE TO PAY IT ALL"

Losty Dublin

jd wrote: »

So what did happen in SC regarding Tom D'arcy

From one of his buddies FB page.

I've being very devil advocate here but bear with me.

Let's say that what they say actually happened and that D'arcy, a lay litigant has actually singlehandedly beat AIB, real David and Goliath stuff that Hollywood would write for Tom Cruise or Susan Saradon to star in. He gets an 8 figure sum off of them, a whopping judgement to say the least and is now set up for life. As well as that, he has created legal history in taking and winning his case but he has also done what the general public would love to see done to the Banks; give the banks the finger. And this in a case that the media have had a pulse on, if not reported on in detail.

And yet this extraordinary and unprecedented win has not been reported in the media some 4 days later, not even on Indymedia.ie or the Journal.

It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

jd

infosys wrote: »

From the headline "THE LEGAL BILL IS 17 MILLION EURO AND A.I.B. HAVE TO PAY IT ALL"

Yeah I know. It's mad how they misrepresent things

Robbo

Robbo wrote: »

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

And continuing today's zoological theme, I came across this nugget from Ben via this, of this parish.

"Years ago I had a child out of wedlock and discovered very quickly the corruption of rights of fathers and all denial of same in the monkey courts they call family law. So as you can imagine its something that's close to my heart and something I will fight for.

Kind regards

Ben Gilroy".

Now time to put on your Spiderman outfit and scale a tower crane in order to demonstrate what a stable and level headed father you are...

johnnyskeleton

jd wrote: »

So what did happen in SC regarding Tom D'arcy

From one of hiss buddies FB page.

By a process of inference only, it was argued that she didn't receive independent legal advice before signing her consent over the family home so the charge is only valid as against his interest in same, not hers. The Supreme Court place importance on wives signing things they don't understand.

He stood up and said something foolish which was promptly ignored.

Thus, repossession is not immediately possible (partition and sale to satisfy a judgment mortgage may be at a later date).

The debt of 17m or whatever is presumably still owed. The bank will have to separately discharge her legal fees because she does not owe them anything.

He initially puts a coy message on Facebook, fully expecting a more accurate summary to appear in the papers.

None is forthcoming so he gives his interpretation of events full voice.

That's all speculation though.

Benbulnen64

My favourite quote here both in terms of brevity and being entertaining: he stood up and said something foolish which was promptly ignored...

Losty Dublin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

By a process of inference only, it was argued that she didn't receive independent legal advice before signing her consent over the family home so the charge is only valid as against his interest in same, not hers. The Supreme Court place importance on wives signing things they don't understand.

He stood up and said something foolish which was promptly ignored.

Thus, repossession is not immediately possible (partition and sale to satisfy a judgment mortgage may be at a later date).

The debt of 17m or whatever is presumably still owed. The bank will have to separately discharge her legal fees because she does not owe them anything.

If this is approximately what happened, does this mean that AIB may choose to refile to the courts for an order of repossession on the house?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Does this mean that it's unlikely that they will take such an action, at least in the short term?

Beano

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But surely for a house that is jointly owned she would have had to sign for the mortgage. How is that not consent?

Unrealistic

Beano wrote: »

But surely for a house that is jointly owned she would have had to sign for the mortgage. How is that not consent?

I think the argument is that she was subject to undue influence from her husband and didn't freely give her consent. If that is the case then it won't be surprising if banks start to require husbands and wives to have separate legal representation for re-mortgage transactions going forward.

Pro Hoc Vice

Beano wrote: »

But surely for a house that is jointly owned she would have had to sign for the mortgage. How is that not consent?

I was in court one of the days this case was mentioned, the issue was undue influence, at the time the husband was helping the wife with her case. The court pointed out the issue with him assisting her in her argument that he had exercised undue infulence, the wife took this on board and got a legal team on board at that stage.

returnNull

infosys wrote: »

I was in court one of the days this case was mentioned, the issue was undue influence, at the time the husband was helping the wife with her case. The court pointed out the issue with him assisting her in her argument that he had exercised undue infulence, the wife took this on board and got a legal team on board at that stage.

That stinks to high heaven of collusion between the wife and husband to come up a get out clause...

Pro Hoc Vice

returnNull wrote: »

That stinks to high heaven of collusion between the wife and husband to come up a get out clause...

Not at all, I would after hearing the little bit I did that the claim was a valid one, without seeing any judgement, it seems the SC agreed. To the best of my understanding the debt stands it just makes repossession very difficult if not impossible on the family home.

benway

Allow appeal adj Pl H Remit HCt C to Ds v Pl

Adjourn for plenary hearing, remit to High Court.

This is far from being over.

I do note, also, that it's Costs to Defendants against the Plaintiffs. Would suggest to me that it's not a thing that only the wife won her appeal, would be noted as "C to 2nd D v Pl" or such. My best guess is that the SC wasn't pleased with the extent to which any purported defence had been thrashed out in the High Court. Seems that the order for possession was granted on 21st of January, 2013, being the Monday Special Summons list, which would normally involve disposal on affidavit without an opportunity to call oral evidence.

Granted, how much can be read into all of that is very much dependent on how fastidious the Registrar was in filling out the system.

Certainly, the SC seems to have delivered an ex tempore ruling in it, as it was only >listed< for a day or less, and the order was granted on the spot. Can safely say that no Weighty Issues of Law were involved, otherwise there would've been a reserved judgment.

Ben™ was on Facebook like a flash claiming that this is an full vindication of his methods, amounted to a full refutation of the Primetime Hatchet Job™, etc. Wonder how he squares that with Darcy's thanks for his team of qualified lawyers? Possessed of quite the pair of cojones, that lad.

Benbulnen64

Unrealistic

Now tis nigh on 20 years since I did my contract law unit but wouldn't the wife have to have a bit of a disability in terms of say lack of English comprehension, English not being her first language, or have a bit of an intellectual slowness, et al for an undue influence argument to be credibly run??

Pro Hoc Vice

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Unrealistic

Now tis nigh on 20 years since I did my contract law unit but wouldn't the wife have to have a bit of a disability in terms of say lack of English comprehension, English not being her first language, or have a bit of an intellectual slowness, et al for an undue influence argument to be credibly run??

Undue influence can take many forms, it can be a blatant threat, it can be very subtle, with out seeing the affidavits/evidence no one will know the exact claim (doubt there will be a written judgement).

Also I am guessing the required consent was a statutory one under the family home protection act.

Benbulnen64

Ta for the info, Infosys. I was curious...

My favourite bit of contract law was that consideration could be the obviation of a disbenefit, Some of my classmates who had zero interest in words/ language didn't get it or my being taken with it at all..

Wildlife Actor

infosys wrote: »

Undue influence can take many forms, it can be a blatant threat, it can be very subtle, with out seeing the affidavits/evidence no one will know the exact claim (doubt there will be a written judgement).

Also I am guessing the required consent was a statutory one under the family home protection act.

Undue influence? So hold on here, he's on the interweb and facepage crowing about a great victory against the banks, and the victory is his wife proving that she was fooled into signing the mortgage BY HIM??

Should be in jail so!

cobhguy28

Love nor Money wrote: »

Undue influence? So hold on here, he's on the interweb and facepage crowing about a great victory against the banks, and the victory is his wife proving that she was fooled into signing the mortgage BY HIM??

Should be in jail so!

Look the judgement needs to be seen before people can start commenting.

People are just speculation and from my reading of the original High Court case are all completely wrong. This has noting to do with the mortgage on the family home, it has to do with Mr Darcy giving the home as collateral for his business. I do not even think there is a mortgage on the family home.

What i think has happened is that she successfully claimed that when the bank asked her for her permission "family home protection act" to use the house as collateral that she only signed because she was unduly influenced by her husband. This means that she really did not consent. However the bank would still be able to get a judgment mortgage against Mr Darcy half of the house.

johnnyskeleton

Thanks benbulben, that makes a lot of sense.

In re undue influence, would that not be an issue between husband and wife rather than wife and bank? Hence banks remove any suggestion of undue influence by advising wives to get separate representation if they wish?

Otherwise undue influence could be an answer to every contract you want to wriggle out of.

Wildlife Actor

@cobhguy and johnnyskeleton

If it is undue influence, it's definitely the husband unduly influencing the wife. I've come across it (not personally!) and while it plays out as between the bank and the wife, that's only because the husband doesn't give a toss because he usually has no money, so to protect their mortgage the bank end up having to fight his fight by proving the wife had independent advice or whatever.

Fair point about the speculation though... It could have been anything (except freeman crap that is).

Robbo

Things are getting weirder in Ballyphehane. The local newspaper's been threatened, UCC is a pirate organisation under the aegis of Pfizer (Cap'n Viagra, I presume) and the Gardai have been rightly kicking down doors.

MilanPan!c

Robbo wrote: »

Things are getting weirder in Ballyphehane. The local newspaper's been threatened, UCC is a pirate organisation under the aegis of Pfizer (Cap'n Viagra, I presume) and the Gardai have been rightly kicking down doors.

That article (and the news that the Gardai are finally acting against the group) is welcome news!

These guys are actively promoting a lot of very bad stuff to frightened and naive people, and more than a couple are making money off the back of this bad advice. They should be treated like the fake "Nigerian Prince" that they are.

Pat Mustard

Robbo wrote: »

UCC is a pirate organisation under the aegis of Pfizer (Cap'n Viagra, I presume)

I think that this may be in no small part because of their confusion between the Uniform Commercial Code and University College Cork.

It's a bit like when an angry, illiterate mob turned on a paediatrician:

Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile"

Morons.