Freeman Megamerge

Pat Mustard

ken wrote: »

Every time I see a picture of Ben Gilroy I think "secret love child of Charles J Haughey

MilanPan!c

From another DDI thread:

humberklog wrote: »

I noticed that Ray Whitehead (founder of DDI) has said he'd like to see Aisling Fitzgibbon run for DDI in the up coming elections. This vote of confidence got the backing of The chairman, Jeff Rudd.

Aisling Fitzgibbon is The Girl Against Fluoride. Her mother is Martha Brassil.

DDI passed a motion at it's AGM saying that once DDI is in a position of power it will stop the practice of fluoridation of our mains water supply.

Ray was speaking after a talk by Aisling. A talk he found "eye opening". One would have thought that his eyes were already wide open re this matter before DDI voted on it. But we all live and learn I suppose.

I do wonder how much more from this woman and her group would DDI have their eyes opened? Anti vaccination? Contraception pills being a factor in someone being born gay?

Aisling hasn't as far as I can see committed in any way to DDI.

Here's some background on Aisling

http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.com/2013/11/girl-against-fluoride-f-minus-for-effort.html

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89132804#post89132804

The more things change...

Here's Martha claiming that contraception pills can predispose mothers to having gay kids...

https://soundcloud.com/bloodboylan/martha-brassil-on-classic-hits

Losty Dublin

MilanPan!c wrote: »

From another DDI thread:



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89132804#post89132804

The more things change...

Here's Martha claiming that contraception pills can predispose mothers to having gay kids...

https://soundcloud.com/bloodboylan/martha-brassil-on-classic-hits

That sort of guff is exactly what the backward conservative DDI supporter love and cherish. No to everything bar free beer.

jd

Following on from

jd wrote: »

Saw this in the local Wexford Paper

Quote:
A DEFENDANT .. told.. a Wexford Garda that the language he was using was ‘ barbarian’ to his mind ..

Mark Redmond ( 47), The Sanctuary, Belgrove, Duncormick, is charged with possession of drugs for sale or supply, unlawful possession of drugs and the cultivation of cannabis, all at Airdownes Great, Broadway, on June 29, 2012.
Garda Stephen Burke said Redmond replied: ‘I invoke UCC1.308; I do not understand your language, it is barbarian to my mind,’ while he was charging him with the offences.
UCC1.308 ?

Drugs accused didn’t like how the Judge called him ‘Mister’
OTHER REMARKS TOO ABOUT LEGAL PROCEDURE

..
Mark Redmond, of Sanctuary, Belgrove, Duncormick, was on charges of cultivating cannabis plants ..

Garda Josephine Dowling told Judge Gerard Haughton that the book of evidence was ready in the trial, but Redmond refused to accept it. ‘The best I could do was leave it on the chair beside where he was sitting,’ she said.

..
‘I’m not “Mister”. I am Mark John. I have a certificate with me to prove it,’ countered the defendant.

‘What’s your name, judge?’ he continued. ‘Have you got your bond?’

..

Redmond was also facing motoring charges, stemming from offences at Kilrane on April 5 last year.

Prosecuting Garda John O'Flynn gave evidence of having stopped the defendant while driving. He asked to see an insurance cert and driving licence, but neither was produced in the specified time.

The defendant told the judge the garda who stopped him was not in full uniform.

‘I was wearing the same garda outfit as I'm now wearing in court,' said Garda O'Flynn.

‘You were not wearing your hat,' answered the defendant.

Redmond continued that he was not ‘driving’, saying that was a term used for driving cattle on the roads many years ago. He also claimed he was not driving a ‘motor vehicle’, as the garda had said, and that the correct term was ‘an automobile’.

..

‘I will be appealing,' the defendant said.

The full report should be up later on in the week..

Robbo

That's just brilliant, he even managed to put in the classic "powerless and hatless Garda" trope into it.

In other news, dynamic duo Gerry Beades and Tom "Constant Markevicz" D'arcy have been pestering Allsop again.

A more cynical mind would suggest that the commitment that "no properties in future will be offered for sale where there is a legal dispute in connection with the proposed sale between the registered owner (being the borrower) and the bank/receiver" will result in certain gentlemen looking at the forthcoming auction lists and cajoling the soon-to-be-ex owners into initiating some baseless action against the bank/receiver/Cthulu in order to derail the whole thing. And perhaps a small donation would be given to the warchest in order to keep the wolf from the door?

RainyDay

jd wrote: »

‘I will be appealing,' the defendant said.

Not very appealing, really.

MilanPan!c

RainyDay wrote: »

Not very appealing, really.

In the future he predicts he'll be appealing. Though certainly not universally, I'd guess.

Losty Dublin

jd wrote: »

Following on from....

The full report should be up later on in the week..

Seriously, what is it with Wexford, cars and cannabis that they get so many of these cases?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Figured it out, Fred.

It's all the straw (berry) men.

jd

It's the chemtrails. "They" are picking on Wexford, nothing to do with the fact it is under one of the main transatlantic flight corridors

Marve

BREAKING: @ 19:15pm.

Latest FBook Rodolphus Allen Trust group SKIPS it!! :eek:




Status link::
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=232467356941038&set=p.232467356941038

Rodolphus Allen group that carried on Charlies scam:
https://www.facebook.com/rodolphus.allen
.
..
...

benway

Robbo wrote: »

In other news, dynamic duo Gerry Beades and Tom "Constant Markevicz" D'arcy have been pestering Allsop again.

A more cynical mind would suggest that the commitment that "no properties in future will be offered for sale where there is a legal dispute in connection with the proposed sale between the registered owner (being the borrower) and the bank/receiver" will result in certain gentlemen looking at the forthcoming auction lists and cajoling the soon-to-be-ex owners into initiating some baseless action against the bank/receiver/Cthulu in order to derail the whole thing. And perhaps a small donation would be given to the warchest in order to keep the wolf from the door?

Afaik, Jerry had another reversal last week - Permanent TSB got possession of one of his properties. Coincidentally enough.

Was a huge barney with Jerry insisting that Kelly J recuse himself because he holds a bank account with ILP or some such - transcript in the Phoenix.

Mattie McGrath fighting the good fight for him in the Dáil and all - Fianna Fáil DNA, wha?

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2014-02-21a.6&s=permanent+speaker%3A185#g78

MilanPan!c

Marve wrote: »

BREAKING: @ 19:15pm.

Latest FBook Rodolphus Allen Trust group SKIPS it!! :eek:




Status link::
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=232467356941038&set=p.232467356941038

Rodolphus Allen group that carried on Charlies scam:
https://www.facebook.com/rodolphus.allen
.
..
...

Amazing.


The comments on the RAT FB page are shocking as well.

Losty Dublin

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Amazing.


The comments on the RAT FB page are shocking as well.

The photo is now unavailable. Thank God for screen shots

Robbo

Nice to see the various factions are destroying each other, less nice to see the Trust trying to shake down it's members for another €25 each.

jd

jd wrote: »

Following on from







The full report should be up later on in the week..

Here we go
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/enniscorthyguardian/news/drugs-accused-didnt-like-how-the-judge-called-him-mister-30038718.html

MilanPan!c

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The photo is now unavailable. Thank God for screen shots

Speaking of which

benway

Anyone know anything about "The Hub" aka "The Legal Fix"?

And I quote:

Without malice / frivolity / vexation lol, ‘been around the courts too long’.

Definitely a phrase that you'd pick up hanging around the courts and not from reading internet Fremen wingnuttery.

Seem to be peddling a mix of encouragement to issue proceedings seeking remedies unknown in law (see their template statement of claim here) but also "Research by our friend and hardworking mate, Ben".

Their address is given as 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 7. Which is also the address cited for "Lay Litigation Ireland".

I'd heard a story that Ben™ and Jerry had set up an office for their "practice" somewhere around Smithfield, although going by Google street view, this address may well be derelict...

Marve

Tony Rochford got a reply from Charlies son, he was good enough to screen-cap and make it public

joela

What makes me laugh is Tony Rochford claiming to have been "sucked in"..... poor innocent Tony :rolleyes:

benway

Video interview of Brassneck Jerry by Barry Egan: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lets-call-it-banking-bad-30054533.html

Apparently he's setting up an organisation called the Land League. Barf.

Statutes Apply!

DDI concerns over prejudicial media reporting before Ben Gilroy's day in court http://directdemocracyireland.ie/curious-reporting-news-irish-independent/?fb_action_ids=10202454120386606&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210202454120386606%22%3A411934138950778}&action_type_map={%2210202454120386606%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

Statutes Apply!

Ben Gilroy webcast about his case. He starts about 50 minutes into this http://podcaststorage.weebly.com/uploads/7/1/4/8/7148904/jmcjohnnymeathbengilroy.15.02.2014.mp3

benway

The major talking point was that Justice Ryan had made it definitively clear that the case was “entirely a civil matter”. This raised the problematic question for the courts as to why another sitting judge issued arrest warrants for Ben and two others which led to Ben having his home broken into by Gardai, who entered the upstairs of his home and handcuffed him in front of his young children. If this was clearly NOT a criminal matter then we must question how a ‘bank’ can possibly persuade a judge to use the Gardai in this way?

Dear Ben™,

Let me google that for you.

Yours, etc.

Rules of the Superior Courts
Order: 44 - Attachment and committal.

1. An order of attachment shall direct that the person against whom the order is directed shall be brought before the Court to answer the contempt in respect of which the order is issued, and shall be in the Form No. 11 in Appendix F, Part II.

2. An order of committal shall direct that upon his arrest the person against whom the order is directed shall be lodged in prison until he purge his contempt and is discharged pursuant to further order of the Court, and shall be in the Form No. 12 in Appendix F, Part II...

7. Every order of attachment or committal shall be directed to the Commissioner and members of the Garda Síochána.

Considering that he's been applying his keen legal mind to a motion to attach and commit him, you'd think he'd have read up on this stuff.

Because, of course Ben of the Ancient and Noble Clann Mac Giolla Rua, authorised agent for Ben Gilroy™ is not now and never has been a practising Freeman on the Land and as such definitely doesn't subscribe to an arse-backwards and self-serving understanding of civil, criminal and common law.

Not sure what the 'scare quotes' around bank are all about, either.

blueythebear

Statutes Apply! wrote: »

Ben Gilroy webcast about his case. He starts about 50 minutes into this http://podcaststorage.weebly.com/uploads/7/1/4/8/7148904/jmcjohnnymeathbengilroy.15.02.2014.mp3

I listened to the podcast. I don't know where to start with this one. I just hope that he continues with the "arguments" from the podcast in the Court.

He also says some pretty outrageous things about a certain HC judge, stuff that would get him in some trouble.

benway

blueythebear wrote: »

I listened to the podcast. I don't know where to start with this one. I just hope that he continues with the "arguments" from the podcast in the Court.

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating: Ben™'s made of pure molten bullsh!t. Some arrogance from a man who's clearly dumber than a bag of hammers.

Thing is, he talks big with his mates on the internet, but any time I've seen him in court with his own skin on the line, he's been nice as pie.

Ben&#8482 wrote:

If anyone can show me the line in the constitution that entitles him to make that order, I'll eat my hat

Art. 40. 4. 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.

Art. 40. 5. The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.

Hope you've got your ketchup handy there Ben™.

****EDIT****

And there's the David Icke reference. Ah here, there's Francis of the Family Cullen.

Is it me, or is he implying that people should get Gilroy & Associates in as their legal team and that legal aid is available for it?

Robbo

1h23m: Ben standing up against the might of eFlow, counters with a €50,000 counterclaim which "puts it in the High Court and costs him nothing but costs them money".

Also, Ben states that it's now 3 and a half years since he's paid his mortgage. Still, the Freemasons will put paid to that, they seem to be after him in every other way.

Robbo

I'm not sure which particular chapter this lot belong to but if you follow their handy guide to fighting the property tax, you can be repaid all Stamp Duty and VAT spent on your home. Cha-Ching!

MilanPan!c

Des at the CLS has sent out another missive. This one asks:

The question posed was:
“If there was a ‘Referendum’, to make Income Tax Mandatory ... would you vote Yes or No?”.

We have had several deleterious comments, and emails about this question. One man specifically alleging, stereotyping and castigating us for spinning the “Freeman Nonsense”. We have been called worse things.

Equally that same man was challenged and tasked with proving and providing us with documented evidence and the law, that states and proves that Income Tax was or is Mandatory.

We directed him to look at the relative or all of the Taxes Consolidations Act(s), and to point out to us what specific section of the Act that he relied upon. He did not come back to us on this challenge. Perhaps someday he will? We won’t hold our breaths though.

If you our readers can point to the specific Act, Statute, Code or Section that states/stipulates that Income Tax is Mandatory then we will stand corrected.

We wish to point out that the word “Emolument” is used extensively throughout the Taxes Consolidation Act(s), and is legally defined as: "Any advantage, profit, or gain received as a result of one’s employment or one’s holding of office”. This means that ONLY Public sector employees are legally liable to pay Income Tax, because they receive an advantage, profit and/or gain as a result of the office they hold.

People in the Private section in the main, or on the whole do not receive an advantage, profit or gain over and above the time and energy that they fairly exchange. This is not applicable to People in Private employment unless they, as Josephine Feehily states “Voluntarily Comply”, which of course is what a lot of People do. They chose to pay Income Tax.

The question then still is and is for People in Private employment etc.: “If there was a ‘Referendum’, to make Income Tax Mandatory ... would you vote Yes or No?”.

Naturally the Choice is YOURS ...

The reason that we bring up such a topic for discussion and debate, is thus. There is growing trend of People on the Island that are not happy with their lot, and they way that they are being fleeced by the State and their Puppet Government.

Every day, more and more People are getting fed up with the scam that is the State. Apart from going into the arena of the Courts, and or demonstrating, marching, protesting and or writing letters, perhaps we should all think critically about why this is all happening?

Ultimately the State want/wish to derive more and more Revenue from the People. Perhaps a better way of showing and or demonstrating your disapproval with your lot, is to decide to NOT Voluntarily Comply with paying Income Tax to Revenue?

Doesn’t it make logical sense, that if they are getting less and less Revenue from the People every day, that perhaps they might just start to sit up, and do what they are told?

After all the People are their paymasters & not the other way round. Just a thought …