Freeman Megamerge

MilanPan!c

infosys wrote: »

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.

It's odd that the owner - whomever that is(?) - would be selling the house, and signing up for Chuck's scam, and letting Chuck live on the land.

Certainly they must know the trust is a scam if they're also selling it..?

And if the trust is a scam, what possible legal right could Chuck have to be on the property - if the house was sold?

It's all a mess.

The biggest mess would be Chuck's presence making the sale fall through, and then the house being repossessed instead of being sold.

Def all very unclear at the moment

EDIT: actually I see that the sale was by the receivers now. Certainly if it was in the hands of receivers the original owner couldn't simply allow people to move onto it, as that would interfere with the receivers.

Or is this in fact an attack by the owner against the receivers?

What happens to an owner if they interfere with a receiver?

Robbo

Another Free(wo)man in jail.

Miriam O’Regan BL, for the receiver, said Ms O’Callaghan had sought assistance through Facebook to occupy the house against attempts by the receiver to take possession.

rameire

https://m.facebook.com/helena.ocallaghan.3?id=100000306945036&_rdr

She is defo into the freewoo.
Her Facebook page.

MilanPan!c

Robbo wrote: »

Another Free(wo)man in jail.

The receiver had arrived with gardaí to take possession on October 29th but the attempt was abandoned because of fears of violence.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/squatter-jailed-for-contempt-over-refusal-to-leave-house-1.1609162

MilanPan!c

rameire wrote: »

https://m.facebook.com/helena.ocallaghan.3?id=100000306945036&_rdr

She is defo into the freewoo.
Her Facebook page.

From said page:

johnnyskeleton

Robbo wrote: »

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

At least they know the level of intelligence of their listeners! Comrade snowball is now a traitor.

MilanPan!c

Regarding the "trust" (via https://www.facebook.com/wearerabble)

[Charlie was] released on understanding he won't trespass or interfere with land. We're posting this as they are talking about in the Dáil at the moment, cross party consensus that this is a 'fraud'

Link anyone??

MilanPan!c

Here we go:

THE DÁIL HAS heard criticism of what has been described as a “highly dubious property trust”, which hundreds of indebted people believe could protect their assets.

Junior minister Kathleen Lynch said that “people who are desperate are being sucked into this” and revealed that there have been hundreds of applications to the State’s property registration body from the group, all of which have been rejected.

Collins told the Dáil that this trust claims to have found a way to split mortgage portfolios and charges a fee to indebted homeowners of as much as €250 in order for them to be part of the organisation which subscribes to ‘freeman on the land’ ideology.
Minister of State Kathleen Lynch said that the Property Registration Authority (PRAI), which manages the Land Registry in Ireland, has received over 500 applications for the registration of ‘Notices of Certificates of Acknowledgement of the Living Man’s Claim of Right’.

All of these have been rejected, she said.

Most interestingly this:

Collins said that “massive fraud and a scam… is being perpetrated right across the country”.

He said his colleague Senator Thomas Bryne had lodged a written complaint with the gardaí but was told that it was not a formal complaint and added that it is time the authorities “took this issue seriously”.

http://www.thejournal.ie/property-trusts-rodolphus-allen-dail-1194792-Nov2013/

Glad to see someone is stepping up and calling this the threat it is.

Statutes Apply!

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/11/topical-issue-debate-to-ask-the-minister-for-justice-to-outline-the-steps-being-taken-to-address-misleading-property-trusts-and-inform-the-public-of-their-dangers-following-the-arrest-of-the-lead/

Remarks by Minister of State Kathleen Lynch.

MilanPan!c

Statutes Apply! wrote: »

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/11/topical-issue-debate-to-ask-the-minister-for-justice-to-outline-the-steps-being-taken-to-address-misleading-property-trusts-and-inform-the-public-of-their-dangers-following-the-arrest-of-the-lead/

Remarks by Minister of State Kathleen Lynch.

From that link:

The “Notices of Certificates of Acknowledgement” appear to be applications to record on a State register the acknowledgement of the “Living Man”. The “Freeman on the Land” is one of a number of groups, originating in Canada and the U.S. who advance the notion that the legal person and living person are two distinct entities. The living person is, in that belief system, not bound by law or court rulings, unless and until the living person or “freeman” contracts to accept such law. Obtaining an entry on a State register of the recognition of the “living man” or “freeman on the land” is often a first tactical step within these groups.

Hurray! Even clueless people like politicians are copping on

benway

500 x €300 minimum fee per folio = at least €150,000 in Charlie's pocket. Wonder is he charging / paying V.A.T. on that?

MilanPan!c

Lynch: Property trusts 'not viable option' for desperate people

Junior justice minister Kathleen Lynch is warning people that they can't save their homes from being repossessed by putting them into trusts.

Kathleen Lynch's warning comes after a man was arrested over operating such a property trust into which thousands of properties were signed, in the belief that it could protect them from legal proceedings.

The issue was discussed in the Dáil today after being raised by Fianna Fáil TD Niall Collins.

"I don't think we can ever enact laws that will protect people who are desperate from making decisions for themselves, and clearly that's what's happening," Minister Lynch told the Dáil.

"A debate like today's… will alert people that (such trusts are) not a viable option."

Trustees paid at least €300-per-folio to have thousands of commercial, agricultural and residential properties signed into the trust, which was connected to the discredited Freemen on the Land ideology.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/lynch-property-trusts-not-viable-option-for-desperate-people-615500.html

Pro Hoc Vice

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's odd that the owner - whomever that is(?) - would be selling the house, and signing up for Chuck's scam, and letting Chuck live on the land.

Certainly they must know the trust is a scam if they're also selling it..?

And if the trust is a scam, what possible legal right could Chuck have to be on the property - if the house was sold?

It's all a mess.

The biggest mess would be Chuck's presence making the sale fall through, and then the house being repossessed instead of being sold.

Def all very unclear at the moment

EDIT: actually I see that the sale was by the receivers now. Certainly if it was in the hands of receivers the original owner couldn't simply allow people to move onto it, as that would interfere with the receivers.

Or is this in fact an attack by the owner against the receivers?

What happens to an owner if they interfere with a receiver?

In relation to your last question, that is exactly what has got us to this position, the HC is dealing with just such a claim by a receiver.

In relation to the current case before the HC involving the Stud it is a civil matter to the best of my knowledge nobody is currently before the courts on a criminal prosecution as the matter seems to be totally civil.

As I said my only point is there is a world of difference between civil and criminal trespass.

MilanPan!c

infosys wrote: »

In relation to your last question, that is exactly what has got us to this position, the HC is dealing with just such a claim by a receiver.

In relation to the current case before the HC involving the Stud it is a civil matter to the best of my knowledge nobody is currently before the courts on a criminal prosecution as the matter seems to be totally civil.

As I said my only point is there is a world of difference between civil and criminal trespass.

Yes I see that.

Thanks for the clarification and information.

Robbo

This report on the now arrested Cork squatter also mentions the aborted Ballyphehane kangaroo court.

Pat O'Donoghue, manager at the Community Centre told The Cork Independent that they were turned away on Tuesday 5 November when they tried to hold the trial.

He said that they had not booked a room in the centre and added that rooms are rented out to members of the public, however more stringent checks are now in place. He said that he hadn't seen the group since then.

You'd think an angry mob wanting to conduct a show trial would be more organised.

moyners

This is escalating somewhat:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/cwojausnqlau/

Mr Allen, of the Rodolphus Allen Private Family Trust organisation, had told security men employed to protect the premises at Tivoli in Cork City they "better be out of here by tomorrow", the High Court heard when it granted orders preventing him and others from interfering with a receiver over the property.

In affidavits from the receiver and a security man brought in to protect the property, counsel said, two firearms were spotted in the caravan through a window.

When the Garda Emergency Response Unit was called, it recovered a single shotgun, although two men who had been there earlier ran away before gardaí arrived.

So we all remember when I said violence was the next step for them?

MilanPan!c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So we all remember when I said violence was the next step for them?

I said it was very possible as well.

No one wants that and we all hope it doesn't go that way, but it certainly wouldn't be out of character for the most extreme adherents to these conspiracy theories to resort to violence.

Fingers crossed this is the bubble bursting, not the beginning of something worse.

Ken.

Deleted User wrote: »

So we all remember when I said violence was the next step for them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNGc9zmpK5M

benway

Deleted User wrote: »

So we all remember when I said violence was the next step for them?

A friend of mine was sitting down beside a guy and two younger girls for Ben™'s appearance last Friday, apparently one of the crew came over and said "if this all kicks off, be sure to get these girls out of here".

Whether this was just bluster or amateur dramatics, I don't know. But I definitely got the impression that things would've gotten rowdy at the very least if the big man had been packed off to the Joy.

Tom Young

While it is always dangerous making remarks about the operation of the courts, and while the Courts are to be held in public per Art. 34 of the Constitution, my view of the behaviour exhibited in Court last week, by those members of the public who chose to attend, actually was in a few instances, and in other instances was bordering on contempt in facie curiae.

The downside of the movement away of the criminal bar/courts to the CCJ/zoo, is that there are less protections available to the judicial system.

The sooner an end is put to all of this fictitious and misleading freeman/sovereign legal bunkum the better.

"... illegal picketing outside the courthouse but on courthouse property is in facie (contempt)."

MilanPan!c

Tom Young wrote: »

While it is always dangerous making remarks about the operation of the courts, and while the Courts are to be held in public per Art. 34 of the Constitution, my view of the behaviour exhibited in Court last week, by those members of the public who chose to attend, actually was in a few instances, and in other instances was bordering on contempt in facie curiae.

The downside of the movement away of the criminal bar/courts to the CCJ/zoo, is that there are less protections available to the judicial system.

The sooner an end is put to all of this fictitious and misleading freeman/sovereign legal bunkum the better.

"... illegal picketing outside the courthouse but on courthouse property is in facie (contempt)."

I don't suppose you'd expound a bit more about this?

What did you, see, and how it is/could be considered contempt...?

If you have the time.

Thanks!

benway

Tom Young wrote: »

The sooner an end is put to all of this fictitious and misleading freeman/sovereign legal bunkum the better.

+1 (obviously), but I'm not 100% convinced that the court invoking its contempt jurisdiction too readily will help - these guys have been looking to make a martyr for a while, just don't think Ben™ and Chuck figured that they'd find themselves in the firing line.

From what I saw on Friday, it did seem like there was an attempt to intimidate by packing the court, something a bit Janus-faced about Ben™ playing nice as pie with the court with his rentamob in tow. Although, as I say it was all pretty good natured in the end.

It's a tough one, think Chuckie may have forced the court's hand by giving undertakings then going straight on to another "Trust Property" - there's a bit of disagreement as to whether the undertaking he gave related only to the stud farm or generally not to breach orders of which he was aware.

Just not sure that jailing one of the lads won't give the whole thing a shot in the arm, the "movement" seems to be doing a pretty good job of falling apart on its own steam.

littlemac1980

Personally - and this is just my view, not intended to be a criticism of the previous remark - I believe the concept of "risking making someone a Martyr" is given far too much weight now-a-days, particularly in relation to semi-radical groups and non-conformists etc.

I think a firm approach is what's needed by the Courts. Freemanism is a direct attack on democracy, and the democratically established legal framework and Judicial system.

The response should be outright zero-tolerance, particularly of those responsible for instigating and enticing the widespread acts of Contempt which they are openly attempting to promote.

The converse of "making someone a Martyr" is "making an example of someone", the possibility of both results arise from the same course of action. I believe the action needs to be taken forthwith. To use a recent term - the OUTLAWS need to be brought to justice.

MilanPan!c

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Personally - and this is just my view, not intended to be a criticism of the previous remark - I believe the concept of "risking making someone a Martyr" is given far too much weight now-a-days, particularly in relation to semi-radical groups and non-conformists etc.

I think a firm approach is what's needed by the Courts. Freemanism is a direct attack on democracy, and the democratically established legal framework and Judicial system.

The response should be outright zero-tolerance, particularly of those responsible for instigating and enticing the widespread acts of Contempt which they are openly attempting to promote.

The converse of "making someone a Martyr" is "making an example of someone", the possibility of both results arise from the same course of action. I believe the action needs to be taken forthwith. To use a recent term - the OUTLAWS need to be brought to justice.

I do sometimes wonder, if the responsible parties (i.e. the Gardai, the Courts and the Media) had come down on Chuckles and his "Trust" hard, at the outset, instead of ignoring, or in the case of RTE saying things like, "it's not clear if the trust will be successful" - if they had all taken the very clear history of these groups, their understanding of the law, etc., and come down hard... I wonder how many fewer people would've paid to be in Claire's "Trust" or would be donating to Ben or Marcus, etc., etc.

The message has been a mixture of silence and ... confusion... and that's certainly not helpful...

Imagine if RTE reported on the Nigerian Prince scam: "It's not certain if anyone will become a millionaire, but you should consider talking to a solicitor before sending your bank details"... they'd be laughed off the air... this is no different and pretending it is gives some credence to these criminals and their scams.

goose2005

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I do sometimes wonder, if the responsible parties (i.e. the Gardai, the Courts and the Media) had come down on Chuckles and his "Trust" hard, at the outset, instead of ignoring, or in the case of RTE saying things like, "it's not clear if the trust will be successful" - if they had all taken the very clear history of these groups, their understanding of the law, etc., and come down hard... I wonder how many fewer people would've paid to be in Claire's "Trust" or would be donating to Ben or Marcus, etc., etc.

The message has been a mixture of silence and ... confusion... and that's certainly not helpful...

Imagine if RTE reported on the Nigerian Prince scam: "It's not certain if anyone will become a millionaire, but you should consider talking to a solicitor before sending your bank details"... they'd be laughed off the air... this is no different and pretending it is gives some credence to these criminals and their scams.

Yes, some coverage of it was far too positive, even approving comparisons to the Land League

Tom Young

Anyone for a Rolex, ….. Viagra? … Pop your bank details over via PM. Mother's maiden name as well. Ta ta.

benway

littlemac1980 wrote: »

The response should be outright zero-tolerance, particularly of those responsible for instigating and enticing the widespread acts of Contempt which they are openly attempting to promote.

Civil contempt is a very different creature to a criminal prosecution. There's an excellent decision of Finnegan when he was President of the High Court reviewing the authorities and setting it out its nature and scope: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2006/H108.html

Finlay P. in The State (Commins &#8211 wrote: »

In civil contempt, on the other hand, a Court only moves at the instance of the party whose rights are being infringed and who has, in the first instance, obtained from the Court the Order which he seeks to have enforced. It is clear that in such cases the purpose of the imposition of imprisonment is primarily coercive; for that reason it must of necessity be in the form of an indefinite imprisonment which may be terminated either when the Court upon application by the person imprisoned, is satisfied that he is prepared to abide by its Order and that the coercion has been effective or when the party seeking to enforce the Order shall for any reason waive his rights and agree, or consent to the release of the imprisoned party.

If the coercive function isn't a necessary element - i.e. if there's an undertaking and it's abided by - I'm not sure that prison would be appropriate for Chucky tomorrow. Unless, of course, he openly says to the court that he's not going to abide by orders. Which he won't.

I certainly think that the contempt motions should get an extended hearing - appears that Chuck and Ben™ are likely to blame each other for the whole thing anyway, which will add to the fun, feed into the ongoing infighting within the fanclub and let the issues be fully ventilated, give the lads their chance to respond, make it absolutely clear that prison is justified, and make doubly certain that fair procedures have been employed before pulling the trigger.

But what I'd ideally like to see is one of Chuck's client's putting in a fraud complaint against him or if firearms charges arise out of the gun in the caravan. It's dangerous to underestimate the grip these chancers have on their followers, so long as they can keep up the Latter Day Michael Davitt act...

Tom Young

Dunne J in the Quinn litigation was the most recent outing of this issue of contempt, determinative sentences, McGrath, etc.

McFeely is also with a look vis-a-vis inability to comply with orders, Kearns P. overturned on appeal. The Super Court judgment is interesting on a number of levels.

Tom

benway

Yup - but the principle remains that punitively orientated committal should only be ordered in extreme circumstances. Now, arguably circumstances don't come much more extreme than in the tale of Ben™ and Chuck, but that makes it all the more important that meticulously fair procedures are adhered to. With due regard to Hardiman J's comments in McFeely:

I would add only that the procedure of attachment and committal for contempt are solemn procedures which deserve to be reported without the sort of schadenfreude which one sometimes sees.

This is second-hand information, with all that entails, but it would appear that Charlie's purged his contempt in relation to the stud farm this morning, but there's a separate application in relation to the Cork property. Not sure what's happened with the latter, but I did see Allen in discussions with his advisors outside the Law Library around an hour ago, so it doesn't look like he's been carted off as yet.