Freeman Megamerge

Valentine1

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Here's the full story from today's Examiner:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/trust-leader-arrested-250761.html

Anybody know which court charlie is going to be in today?

MilanPan!c

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Here's the full story from today's Examiner:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/trust-leader-arrested-250761.html

The money quotes:

When he was initially confronted by this newspaper, Mr Allen claimed Lotamore was his property. He threatened to call the gardaí on the grounds that we were trespassing. He escorted us off the 11-acre property and pulled his Range Rover across the driveway to block access.

New chains had already been attached to the fence crossing the entrance, a small caravan was pulled into the courtyard and two men were working with a cherry-picker on the electrical connections.

The new owner was understood to be unaware of Mr Allen’s presence.

So, he threatened to call the cops to get the "trespassers" off of "his" property even though he was indeed trespassing on someone else's property. Not just trespassing, but getting an electricity account for a property he was trespassing on... amazing.

it reminds again of this description of Freeman tactics from the Memphis newspaper, the "Commercial Appeal":

Others have seized foreclosed homes as their own.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/sovereign-nation/

Of course Chuck could have just found that website and used it as a template for his con:

Some have exploited the nation's foreclosure woes by falsely promising desperate homeowners certain scams can save a person's home or eliminate mortgage debt.

Some have been able to earn millions of dollars from their scams.

Surely not millions Chuck?

Well... hmm... and this is from the Examiner:

Lotamore was one of thousands of commercial, agricultural and residential properties which people have paid at least €300-per-folio to have signed into a trust connected to the freeman of the land ideology.

If 2000 "folios" went in at 300/each, that's €600,000

Losty Dublin

returnNull wrote: »

poor old charlie , his luck ran out

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/exclusive-fugitive-trust-leader-found-in-cork-615305.html

For me, the best bit of it is that he was brazen/dumb enough to accuse the Examiner journalist of trespass and that he actually threatened to call the Gardai himself The High Court should be entertaining this morning; is anybody from here out there today?

On a side note, it was included on Morning Ireland today. A stream/podcast should be up in a while.

MilanPan!c

Valentine1 wrote: »

Anybody know which court charlie is going to be in today?

I hope it's the one from A Few Good Men.

MilanPan!c

Man, the questions being lobbed at Chuck in that video are absolutely classic... we should have a whip around and send Conor Ryan a nice bottle of something for xmas

Valentine1

Losty Dublin wrote: »

For me, the best bit of it is that he was brazen/dumb enough to accuse the Examiner journalist of trespass and that he actually threatened to call the Gardai himself The High Court should be entertaining this morning; is anybody from here out there today?

On a side note, it was included on Morning Ireland today. A stream/podcast should be up in a while.

I'll be down there will try and pop my head in if I can.

MilanPan!c

Valentine1 wrote: »

I'll be down there will try and pop my head in if I can.

Oooh! Please do!

Robbo

Reasons that Charlie Allen is a hipster:

• His trust documents are "so meta"
• The magic waistcoat
• He occupies Georgian mansions and stud farms but pretends to stand up for the little guy.
• He understands the value of seperating the easily led from their money
• He ponces about in tweed, looking like Mumford & Sons eternally disappointed father

Let's just take a minute to reflect on the fact that the Georgian pile he "acquired" once housed offices for the Irish Sweepstakes. The totally-on-the-level quasi-legal lottery which mainly served to make it's organisers wealthy.

jd

The Examiner reporter has tweeted that Charlie Allen will be up before the court this afternoon.
https://twitter.com/conor_w_ryan/status/405296327463948288

benway

Did somebody say denouement? Tbh, you'd have to imagine that contempt will be the least of Charlie's worries - will surely be costly and tedious litigation involved in unwinding properties from the "trust", never mind the possibility of some of his "beneficiaries" going to the Gardaí.

While we're at it, from yesterday's bankruptcy list:

In a separate case, GE Capital Woodchester sought a new order for possession for a property it originally repossessed in 2012. Counsel for the lender told the court that the borrower, a man in his 30s from Mullingar, Co Westmeath, had broken back into the property.

When the lender wrote to notify him of yesterday’s court action, the borrower sent back the letter with a note on it stating he did not recognise the sender and “did not have an international treaty” with it.
Mr Justice McGovern noted the “very strange message” and granted the new order.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/man-given-last-opportunity-to-hold-on-to-family-home-1.1607096

Valentine1

Am back in the office now and won't be in the courts this afternoon, shame as it is bound to be interesting!

cobhguy28

benway wrote: »

Did somebody say denouement? Tbh, you'd have to imagine that contempt will be the least of Charlie's worries - will surely be costly and tedious litigation involved in unwinding properties from the "trust", never mind the possibility of some of his "beneficiaries" going to the Gardaí.

While we're at it, from yesterday's bankruptcy list:


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/man-given-last-opportunity-to-hold-on-to-family-home-1.1607096

I do not think there is any issue in putting the property into the trust per se. The loans are secure against the property not the ownership. So the banks will have no issue getting a judgement. It is like selling a car with finance on it the bank can still get the car from new owner. The main issue is that he conned the people with lies and took their money. That is what I would like to see him charged with.

Ken.

cobhguy28 wrote: »

I do not think there is any issue in putting the property into the trust per se. The loans are secure against the property not the ownership. So the banks will have no issue getting a judgement. It is like selling a car with finance on it the bank can still get the car from new owner. The main issue is that he conned the people with lies and took their money. That is what I would like to see him charged with.

Can they charge him if no one has made a complaint?

benway

cobhguy28 wrote: »

So the banks will have no issue getting a judgement.

It's not the banks that have the problem.

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Can they charge him if no one has made a complaint?

It's only a matter of time before someone does, tbh.

Valentine1

If there is evidence of a Crime the Gardai can act as the complainant.

MilanPan!c

Valentine1 wrote: »

If there is evidence of a Crime the Gardai can act as the complainant.

And I would guess there's at least enough evidence to start going through all of his financials and whatnot...

But even if there's not at this point, as more and more people lose property they paid him to protect, the chances of a complaint raise eponentially.

benway

Charlie's gone back to 21st January alongside Ben™. Undertakings not to breach court orders, which might pose a bit of a difficulty for him. In for mention on Friday in case he has an epiphany and decides to purge his contempt before it goes any further.

Interestingly, seems that he has solicitors coming on record - counsel appeared on his behalf, albeit without full instructions.

Losty Dublin

benway wrote: »

Charlie's gone back to 21st January....

Will their cases both be heard together?

benway

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Will their cases both be heard together?

That seems to be the plan. Charlie seemed to indicate that he was happy enough with that course being taken, might change his tune having taken legal advice, but at the moment that's the state of play.

cobhguy28

Maybe he could be done for Conspiracy. This is what the law reform commission says about it.

"At present the crime of conspiracy includes agreements to commit civil as well as criminal wrongs. In 1881 Charles Stewart Parnell was tried for conspiring with others to encourage non-payment of rent (this arose from one of his “boycott” speeches)".

The Conspiracy here could be advertising the trust and accepting an asset into the trust knowingly to defraud the bank of the ability to obtain a repossession. In Conspiracy you do not have to show that it worked only its intention.

benway

The main fraud isn't against the banks, though. In any event, for one thing they could probably invoke s.74 of the Land And Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 to set it aside, presuming that the trust deeds will even stand up (which is doubtful in the extreme).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0027/sec0074.html#sec74

The problem is taking money off people and purporting to hold their property in pursuance of a "freedom from all debt" scheme that has no prospect of success. Of course, it would be very helpful for the Gardaí to have an explicit determination from the High Court that the Rodolphus Allen Trust is entirely without merit or basis in law. Which can't be far away.

Corkblowin

Passed Lotamore House about an hour ago.

Inside the gate: caravan in the driveway, range rover parked across the gate and men in hi-vis jackets standing around.
Outside the gate: 2 garda vans with lights on and 5/6 gardai.

Couldn't stop to see what was going to happen next.

expectationlost

who use to own lotamore house that got allen involved who owns it now

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/freed-allen-joins-supporters-at-sold-property-250888.html

very noisey road to living next to

Robbo

Things are going from bad to worse for Ben and Charlie if even Tir na Saor are mocking them.

MilanPan!c

Love to know what's going on down in Lotamore today... Seems inconceivable that the Guards would let him and his gang simply bully their way onto private property and set up shop... I found this sentence from the most recent Examiner article to be a complete head-scratcher:

It was the same caravan which Mr Allen had been using in the stable yard of Lotamore when he moved in and set about establishing it as the corporate headquarters of his trust.

Considering it has been for sale since 2011:

Now, it is selling with agent Catherine McAuliffe, of Savills, for its investor-owner, for €1.3m — buttons for the size and quality of house, and densely wooded grounds just two miles from the city.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/property/house-of-the-week-161193.html

So, wait, can I just break into a house, declare it the corporate headquarters in my house-breaking-into scheme, change the bills into my name, and that's ok?

At some point why hasn't the police simply gone into the property and arrested him and his cult members?

Because if it takes some sort of court mediation to remove criminals from private property - well... I need to rethink this whole "obeying the law" thing.

Pro Hoc Vice

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Love to know what's going on down in Lotamore today... Seems inconceivable that the Guards would let him and his gang simply bully their way onto private property and set up shop... I found this sentence from the most recent Examiner article to be a complete head-scratcher:



Considering it has been for sale since 2011:



http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/property/house-of-the-week-161193.html

So, wait, can I just break into a house, declare it the corporate headquarters in my house-breaking-into scheme, change the bills into my name, and that's ok?

At some point why hasn't the police simply gone into the property and arrested him and his cult members?

Because if it takes some sort of court mediation to remove criminals from private property - well... I need to rethink this whole "obeying the law" thing.

Trespass on property is not simple and clear cut at its most basic to have criminal trespass there must be presence on the property with the intention to commit an offence or in a manner likely to cause fear in another.

MilanPan!c

infosys wrote: »

Trespass on property is not simple and clear cut at its most basic to have criminal trespass there must be presence on the property with the intention to commit an offence or in a manner likely to cause fear in another.

Errr... so by that definition I could move a caravan onto any private property as long as I didn't intend to break the law? And all the owners could do was take me to court?

That seems a bit... odd.

Pro Hoc Vice

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Errr... so by that definition I could move a caravan onto any private property as long as I didn't intend to break the law? And all the owners could do was take me to court?

That seems a bit... odd.

Section 11 and 13 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/index.html

Also see http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0009/sec0024.html#sec24

It's not as simple as saying its criminal trespass, depending on the facts it may or may not be.

MilanPan!c

infosys wrote: »

Section 11 and 13 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/index.html

Also see http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0009/sec0024.html#sec24

It's not as simple as saying its criminal trespass, depending on the facts it may or may not be.

I'll read those!

I would think that moving a house onto private property, would be a criminal offender, or at least, that the Guards could move you on if you had no right to be there.

He seemed to have broken into the actual physical property and was doing work on it... Which seems insanely illegal. I.e if I come to your house and start reminding it while you're on holiday, that can't be legal?

Anyway I'll read those links and maybe it will become more clear. Thanks for those!

EDIT:

Section 11 says its illegal to:

"unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein".

Surely breaking into a property you don't own, changing it physically, getting electricity accounts onto the property, and claiming you own the property - which is for sale - "unlawfully interfering"?

His very presence is bound to affect the saleability of the property and its market value. And that's not even considering the property damage to the out building.

EDIT 2:

The Housing Act if 2002 specifically stated that a temporary house cannot be put on a property if it affects the owners ability to use the property as they desire. In this case they desire to sell the property and a gang of deluded eejits has decided to set up camp on the land, break into and modify some buildings and set up an electricity account on the property. If it was my land I'd consider any one of those things an impediment to my ability to use the land as I saw fit.

How can I hope to sell land when Chuck et al is claiming they own it, renovating it, and putting a office/caravan on it?

Thanks again for the links

Pro Hoc Vice

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'll read those!

I would think that moving a house onto private property, would be a criminal offender, or at least, that the Guards could move you on if you had no right to be there.

He seemed to have broken into the actual physical property and was doing work on it... Which seems insanely illegal. I.e if I come to your house and start reminding it while you're on holiday, that can't be legal?

Anyway I'll read those links and maybe it will become more clear. Thanks for those!

EDIT:

Section 11 says its illegal to:

"unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein".

Surely breaking into a property you don't own, changing it physically, getting electricity accounts onto the property, and claiming you own the property - which is for sale - "unlawfully interfering"?

His very presence is bound to affect the saleability of the property and its market value. And that's not even considering the property damage to the out building.

Just to clarify I have not said its criminal or not. I have simply said it's not enough for criminal trespass to just be present on the property. The facts of each case will decide the matter. In this case it may or may not be criminal the original owner is still that, I believe the property has not yet sold. It is a complex area of law with out adding claims and counter claims about ownership.

From the Irish Examiner article "Its sale was recently agreed by the receivers" so my reading the sale has not completed, the original owner still is the legal owner, so if he gave permission to a third party it gets interesting.