Freeman Megamerge

Statutes Apply!

"High Court was wrongly told activist had assaulted guard" - Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court-was-wrongly-told-activist-had-assaulted-guard-1.1750952

For Forks Sake

jd wrote: »

Free Howth Mansions for everyone in the audience!

http://www.thejournal.ie/tom-darcy-european-elections-1394701-Apr2014/

Losty Dublin

For Forks Sake wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/tom-darcy-european-elections-1394701-Apr2014/

Represent himself, did he? This law firm may beg to differ.

http://www.mchalemuldoon.ie/news/a-win-for-our-client-in-the-supreme-court/

ooter

http://awakenlongford.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/high-court-dublin-today-you-couldnt-make-this-stuff-up/

Ken.

ooter wrote: »

http://awakenlongford.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/high-court-dublin-today-you-couldnt-make-this-stuff-up/

I think I just got stupider for having read that. My head hurts.

flowers345

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Represent himself, did he? This law firm may beg to differ.

http://www.mchalemuldoon.ie/news/a-win-for-our-client-in-the-supreme-court/

'After his money ran out he started to represent himself.'

Statutes Apply!

Seems there's been a verdict http://awakenlongford.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/ahead-of-the-last-day-of-ben-gilroys-contempt-trial-at-dublins-four-courts/[/url]

Meanwhile DDI on facebook has determined "There have been so many failures untruths and misrepresentations in the prosecution of this case bordering on the criminal that should any other verdict than a striking out be made it will be a dark dark day for justice in Ireland"

Robbo

Not strictly the Freemen, but I was reminded of the continued existence of Donegal men who don't like paying tax much and their long running assertion that VRT is illegal. For several years they've been trying to make out that VRT is a Customs Charge and "against Article 25 of the Treaty of Rome". Unfortunately, their expertise on EU law appears to start and stop somewhere about 1959, because they still think that the Treaty of Rome is a thing and that no subsequent Treaties, renumberings or case law in relation to exceptions to Article 30 TFEU (ex 25) have occurred.


Also, they appear to be questioning the very basis of the Oireachtas and support the Attack the Tax mail order scam. Much like Attack the Tax, they've been talking for years about a legal challenge, even collecting money to do so, yet nothing appears to be happening...

Apropos of nothing, if something has mildly peeved you, I will happily vindicate your rights under the Treaty of Utrecht and Second Vatican Council for just a small donation. Cash only please.

johnnyskeleton

Robbo wrote: »

Not strictly the Freemen, but I was reminded of the continued existence of Donegal men who don't like paying tax much and their long running assertion that VRT is illegal. For several years they've been trying to make out that VRT is a Customs Charge and "against Article 25 of the Treaty of Rome". Unfortunately, their expertise on EU law appears to start and stop somewhere about 1959, because they still think that the Treaty of Rome is a thing and that no subsequent Treaties, renumberings or case law in relation to exceptions to Article 30 TFEU (ex 25) have occurred.


Also, they appear to be questioning the very basis of the Oireachtas and support the Attack the Tax mail order scam. Much like Attack the Tax, they've been talking for years about a legal challenge, even collecting money to do so, yet nothing appears to be happening...

Apropos of nothing, if something has mildly peeved you, I will happily vindicate your rights under the Treaty of Utrecht and Second Vatican Council for just a small donation. Cash only please.

Didn't someone already challenge that and it was found that so long as the tax would apply to domestically produced cars (if such existed) as well as imported cars, then it was fine?

LordNorbury

Just thought I'd throw this out there for a general discussion, I'm not a legal professional although as a business owner I am familiar with the areas that I need to be familiar with...

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2014/04/07/gardai-breaking-the-law-by-seizing-untaxed-cars-campaigner/

MOTORISTS should take legal action against Gardaí or Revenue officials who seize their vehicles as officers are breaking European laws, a campaigner has claimed.
And John Doherty from the Irish Drivers Association says motorists would WIN any legal challenge.
He says it’s the Irish Government which is breaking the law and the seizure of vehicles for unpaid taxes – like road tax or vehicle registration tax (VRT) – actually breaches European legislation.
Referring to the seizure of six more vehicles near Ballybofey on Monday – and one in which a man says he suffered a suspected heart attack – Mr Doherty said Gardaí are breaking the law.
“The Gardaí and customs are acting under instruction from Michael Noonan to seize vehicles under the 1992 Finance Act which is contrary to Article 15 of the constitution for unpaid road tax and Customs Duty which is prohibited under article 25 of the Treaty of Rome,” said Mr Doherty.
“Once again this proves that Garda resources are been dedicated to extorting revenue from an already hard pressed motorist while so many crimes go unsolved.”
He has once again urged anyone who has had their car seized to take immediate legal steps.
Mr Doherty added: “European law supersedes Irish law.”

I personally don't find the argument very convincing at all, what "constitution" he may be referring to is unclear, maybe the EU Constitution, but does the EU Constitution hardly has a specific article on unpaid road tax? Article 25 of the Treaty of Rome doesn't seem to mention anything about road tax and the absence thereof either...

Just thought I'd put it out for discussion, stranger things have turned out to be true!

cobhguy28

flowers345 wrote: »

'After his money ran out he started to represent himself.'

It was the other way around. He represented himself first and lost twice, and then he got a solicitor and had one small victory because the court summons was not served correctly and this was only related to his home. The bank has now reissued new summons and Mr darcy will be back in court soon.

Ken.

Have a look at the last page of this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89863373#post89863373

No Pants

ken wrote: »

I think I just got stupider for having read that. My head hurts.

I only made it as far as the statement in bold before my concentration wavered and then fled. On a positive note, I think that if anywhere should be awakened, Longford is a strong contender.

No Pants

Sorry, you lost me at Donegal.

However, I have nothing but admiration for the man who was so shocked to discover his tax non-compliance that his heart ceased to function correctly.

littlemac1980

I sure hope the Gilroy case finishes to today - it seems to have been going on as Long as the Pistorius Trial.

MilanPan!c

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I sure hope the Gilroy case finishes to today - it seems to have been going on as Long as the Pistorius Trial.

Except Gilroy has less of a leg to stand on.





...

Thargor

http://instantrimshot.com/

Ding ding! Seconds out and we are back on. Howard SC opening the submissions for the Plaintiff now. Will report anything interesting. Imagine that'll be more during Ben's submissions.

Oh and it didn't take long! Ben is up already giving it an Art 6 argument about equality of arms etc. He is trying to say the entire process of this contempt hearing is flawed and "tainted with illegality".

Saying the Court has a duty to protect him and is insisting the court abandon this hearing and refer the deponents to the DPP.

Losty Dublin

LordNorbury wrote: »

Just thought I'd throw this out there for a general discussion, I'm not a legal professional although as a business owner I am familiar with the areas that I need to be familiar with...

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2014/04/07/gardai-breaking-the-law-by-seizing-untaxed-cars-campaigner/

I'd trust content in the Donegal Dollop more than that in the Donegal Daily.

Pat Mustard

Deleted User wrote: »

Ben is up already giving it an Art 6 argument about equality of arms etc. He is trying to say the entire process of this contempt hearing is flawed and "tainted with illegality".

Maybe he'll try to argue that it's unfair that he doesn't have a lawyer. :pac:

We broke for lunch. Gilroy needed "time to get [his] head together".

Back at 2 for the show.

Ryan J has indicated he won't give an ex tempore judgment today.

In a funny moment at the end Ryan J noted that Hogan J was giving a lecture on the constitution and said he didn't want the throng walking out but maybe Mr Gilroy might like to attend

An issue was raised about my live reporting apparently. I only got in near the end of the afternoon session but in deference to Ryan J I'm not going to do it anymore.

Will give end of day reports.

Judgment to be delivered on April 29th

Pro Hoc Vice

Deleted User wrote: »

An issue was raised about my live reporting apparently. I only got in near the end of the afternoon session but in deference to Ryan J I'm not going to do it anymore.

Will give end of day reports.

Judgment to be delivered on April 29th

Im surprised it took so long for that to be brought up.

Robbo

Deleted User wrote: »

An issue was raised about my live reporting apparently. I only got in near the end of the afternoon session but in deference to Ryan J I'm not going to do it anymore.

Will give end of day reports.

Judgment to be delivered on April 29th

Is this thread going to be cited along side such masterpieces as the Meads -v- Meads judgment?

Pro Hoc Vice

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Im surprised it took so long for that to be brought up.

I don't think this would come anywhere close to constituting a contempt but regardless it was apparently quite clear Ryan J didn't want anyone doing anything of the sort so I think it's best I discontinue the practice anyway.

In any event there's only one day left in all likelihood

Pro Hoc Vice

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think this would come anywhere close to constituting a contempt but regardless it was apparently quite clear Ryan J didn't want anyone doing anything of the sort so I think it's best I discontinue the practice anyway.

In any event there's only one day left in all likelihood

I agree that its more than likely not contempt, (as no photos) in reality it is reporting, the only issue is reporting direct from the court ok. My belief is yes its fine, but I would not like the argument. As I said I was just surprised it was not brought up before. Judge does not want any issue to derail this now.

hullaballoo

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I agree that its more than likely not contempt, (as no photos) in reality it is reporting, the only issue is reporting direct from the court ok. My belief is yes its fine, but I would not like the argument. As I said I was just surprised it was not brought up before. Judge does not want any issue to derail this now.

I fail to see how it's any different from the half-hourly news bulletins on the radio but again, if the Court has made the direction, it's best to abide by that.

Pro Hoc Vice

hullaballoo wrote: »

I fail to see how it's any different from the half-hourly news bulletins on the radio but again, if the Court has made the direction, it's best to abide by that.

News report do not deliver their report from inside the court room, it has been done on a few occasions with express permission of a judge. But to use a computer to deliver communications to the outside world from the court could be an issue. To take a note of proceedings and then go outside to Inns Quay and give blow by blow account from outside would more than likely be ok. It's the perception that the reports are coming from inside could be an issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/dec/15/tweeting-court-reporters-julian-assange

MilanPan!c

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

News report do not deliver their report from inside the court room, it has been done on a few occasions with express permission of a judge. But to use a computer to deliver communications to the outside world from the court could be an issue. To take a note of proceedings and then go outside to Inns Quay and give blow by blow account from outside would more than likely be ok. It's the perception that the reports are coming from inside could be an issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/dec/15/tweeting-court-reporters-julian-assange

Is this because - in your opinion - people feel that justice will be perverted by real time reportage or what?

I know this is pretty common worldwide, but never really understood the mindset behind it...

Whatintheworld

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Im surprised it took so long for that to be brought up.

Maybe they are not as interested in you as you are in them;)