Freeman Megamerge

Grolschevik

Deleted User wrote: »

Some brilliant misrepresentation, misunderstanding, propaganda and flat out scandalous statements in this press release about today.

http://directdemocracyireland.ie/black-day-irish-judicial-system/

Jaysus.

Pat Mustard

Deleted User wrote: »

Some brilliant misrepresentation, misunderstanding, propaganda and flat out scandalous statements in this press release about today.

http://directdemocracyireland.ie/black-day-irish-judicial-system/

They expected a 'not proven' verdict, a concept unknown to Irish law.

So when Justice Ryan finished on day three saying that he had to decide whether to find him guilty, not guilty or the case is “not proven” the gallery all believed he was going to use the not proven ruling as his ‘get out’. His way of not having to rule against the bank (as the judges never do or will) in a case where they have been shown up to be completely corrupt and have implicated the receivers, the security men, and even the Gardai in this corruption.

Not proven

[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]In Scotland, judges and juries in criminal trials choose from three verdicts: guilty, not proven, and not guilty. Not proven and not guilty are both acquittals, indistinguishable in legal consequence but different in connotation. Not guilty is for a defendant the jury thinks is innocent; not proven, for a case with insufficient evidence of guilt.[/FONT]

What continues to amaze is that they seem to have full confidence in the utter horsesh1t that they write.

johnnyskeleton

The Mustard wrote: »

What continues to amaze is that they seem to have full confidence in the utter horsesh1t that they write.

In law there is a rule that if a statement is found to contain untruths then the entire statement becomes unreliable as evidence.

Only on the third friday after st. swivens' day when the deponent is from Kerry, so that rule didn't apply to Ben!

Making the law up is easy.

Fun too!

Robbo

One thing Ben seems to take exception to is professionals drafting up affidavits for deponents. I'm sure if it's such a mortal sin, operations he's connected to will stop offering it as a service and return any cash they've received for the "service"?

Losty Dublin

I read today that yet more water meter installation related protests have taken place in Dublin and Cork. In one incident a contractor and a protester were taken to hospital with minor injuries in Cork. This is going to get nastier if it isn't nipped in the bud real soon.

whippet

what disturbs me most about DDI is the conflict between what they officially stand for and how they talk and behave.

For a party that claims to be all about the will of the people and let the people decide they are not very tolerant to any conflicting views, opinions or causes that may not be in sync with theirs.

rameire

Ben of the family gimproy was on LMFM after the court case,
well worth a listen,
somebody has a link to it via a podcast on his facemuck page
not able to link to it at moment.

heavily freeman orientated,
his sheep are calling out how great he was on the show.

will he ever go away?

rameire

http://podcaststorage.weebly.com/16/post/2014/04/pod-ben-gilroy-lmfm-interview-30-04-2014.html

here is the podcast of the LMFM radio show with Ben of the Family Gimproy

Sulla Felix

whippet wrote: »

what disturbs me most about DDI is the conflict between what they officially stand for and how they talk and behave.

For a party that claims to be all about the will of the people and let the people decide they are not very tolerant to any conflicting views, opinions or causes that may not be in sync with theirs.

Well, by definition, anyone who doesn't agree with them cannot be an enlightened individual like their good selves. Everyone else is, variously, a shill for the powers that be or a blind sheep.

benway

rameire wrote: »

here is the podcast of the LMFM radio show

Ah here.

I am looking forward to his totes non-biased reconstruction of his courtroom failures on Youtube's The Ben Gilroy™ Show, though.

whippet

rameire wrote: »

http://podcaststorage.weebly.com/16/post/2014/04/pod-ben-gilroy-lmfm-interview-30-04-2014.html

here is the podcast of the LMFM radio show with Ben of the Family Gimproy

I had a bit of time to listen to this .... the guy is bonkers!!! he really does not like being asked tricky questions!!!

Losty Dublin

Today's Irish Times has a list of European Parliament Election candidates for the Dublin constituency.

Noteworthy is that DDI are running not one but two candiates in Dubllin, they being Tom D'arcy and Ray Whitehead. What is more interesting is that have nominated Ben Gilroy and John Squires as replacements for them, along with fellow cronies Clare Leonard and Conor Galdarno.

Does Irish copyright law extend to Strasbourg, I wonder?

Also, quasi Freeman/Green party Fis Nua are fielding a candidate in Dublin; I suspect that they won't prove as newsworthy as our friends from Trim.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Big time, and that's before we allow for the many bills that makes up electoral expenses. According to the notice, Ben says that he is unemployed. I neglected to mention that Ben is also nominated to run in Ireland North West.

Also, party leader, Jan Van der Ven is contesting Ireland South. He has nominated his partner as his replacement; that's pretty direct as democracy goes :rolleyes:

Essien

According to their FB page, they've got a fund raising campaign on indiegogo.

For a cool €1000 you can have dinner with Van the man at a restaurant of his choice.

Can't even vote for my own restaurant FFS :pac:

littlemac1980

Here's a link to the decision in the Gilroy case - I see the Courts website decided to refer to him as Mr. Gilroy to avoid trademark infringement:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/bbf610fa240d48eb80257cd000323082?OpenDocument

Robbo

Some choice quotes:

Mr Gilroy says that he has demonstrated irregularities, inaccuracies and lies in the affidavits, as a result of which the affidavits must be dismissed without further consideration and the whole application must therefore be disallowed. He draws attention to averments concerning the time and place of the swearing of the affidavits and internal references to particular paragraphs, which he says are impossible and demonstrate untruthfulness and/or inaccuracy. However, it is clear to me that much of this line of questioning was based on a misunderstanding of the process of production of affidavits and gives little basis for demonstrating that there is any uncertainty in regard to the central issues in the case. I do not accept that the witnesses were untruthful or that Mr Gilroy went anywhere close to demonstrating the conspiracy that he was alleging.

If I'd been charged by one of these clowns for drafting an affidavit, I'd be looking for my money back.

...Mr Allen, who claimed entitlement to the property under a trust that was utterly meaningless in law but whose purpose was not to impress a court or a lawyer.

Again, if I'd been impressed by such a document and charged for same, I'd be looking for my money back.

Ben's ability to shoot himself in the foot is quite remarkable. He claims not to have been served with the order whilst showing a video that he took himself of the service being effected. Then he tries to make out that he had no part in the organisation of the event whilst telling local radio what a fantastic response he had from the people given only 24 hours and a few phone calls to set it up. Still hasn't stopped him running his mouth on local radio though.

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Some choice quotes:


If I'd been charged by one of these clowns for drafting an affidavit, I'd be looking for my money back.

Again, if I'd been impressed by such a document and charged for same, I'd be looking for my money back.

Here's an honest question, if perhaps a stupid one.

What structures are out there which would regulate the likes of Ben from charging people for services such as drafting affidavits, accompanying people to court, feeding them with "legal advice" etc etc.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pat Mustard

Yeah, they are to law what faith healers and quacks are to medicine. They can tell you that a magic crystal will cure cancer or that a dodgy trust can solve your debt problems, but you can be sure that they have no formal training or qualifications, or any insurance for when things go pear shaped and you need to sue them for negligence.

Only a solicitor can convey land (although this may change to include licensed conveyancers). Only a barrister or practising solicitor has a right of audience in court (with few narrow exceptions for family etc.)

Additionally, banks will only deal with solicitors for the purposes of delivery of monies in respect of secured loans. This is governed by market demand and common sense, rather than by regulation.

So, outside of few exceptions, the market allows relatively free reign to all sorts of charlatans and chancers.

Losty Dublin

The decisions of the latest batch of complaints to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland have just been released. One complaint concerns Prime Time's report on the Freeman Movement...

http://origin.ie/bai/201405_CC_ECFDecisions_May2014_vFinal-2.pdf

Robbo

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The decisions of the latest batch of complaints to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland have just been released. One complaint concerns Prime Time's report on the Freeman Movement...

http://origin.ie/bai/201405_CC_ECFDecisions_May2014_vFinal-2.pdf

Well there's the problem straight away, complaining to a body set up under Statute. As we all know, Statutes are nonsense, lack the requisite Celtic mysticism and not sufficiently nautical to provide a proper means of complaining about TV broadcasts that make you look like a fool.

I see there's further confirmation in that report that the company Claire Cullinane took money to form doesn't exist. I bet that couple up to their eyes in mortgage arrears she was parading are feeling really confident now.

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Well there's the problem straight away, complaining to a body set up under Statute. As we all know, Statutes are nonsense, lack the requisite Celtic mysticism and not sufficiently nautical to provide a proper means of complaining about TV broadcasts that make you look like a fool.

That's just it, Robbo. It suits them to reject and embrace both Statute and State when it suits them.

Speaking of which, here's one for you all.

Ya know the way how Ben and co. are all running for elected office in May? And you know the way how they have issues with Sheriff's and how they operate and are appointed? Well, guess who's office oversees the elections in both Dublin and Cork?

Robbo

There's a piece on Ben avoiding the slammer in the Phoenix this week. I haven't had a chance to pick it up yet.

Also, according to this in the Times, Ben's trying to impeach Judge Ryan, which should be interesting.

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Also, according to this in the Times, Ben's trying to impeach Judge Ryan, which should be interesting.

Impeach Judge Ryan? I suspect that Ben may well be taking his legal instruction from episodes of Ally McBeal.

littlemac1980

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Impeach Judge Ryan? I suspect that Ben may well be taking his legal instruction from episodes of Ally McBeal.

And let's face it she's never had nothing on Denny Crane.

Sulla Felix

So, heard of a tactic being encouraged that sounds distinctly freemanish.

Person has debt to company, about to be taken to court. Was told to let it run, once they get the court documents all they have to do is pay a small amount and the court proceedings will have to be dropped and restarted because the documents will be for an incorrect amount. Rinse and repeat, presumably intent being to delay the case indefinitely.

That has to be bull, right? I'd have thought the payment would be noted and when it got to court the solicitor/barrister would just say to the judge, "well, we got E10 off them recently, so now we're just looking for x-E10." judge "grand so, lets get started."

Long time fan of the thread :pac:

Sulla Felix

Sulla Felix wrote: »

So, heard of a tactic being encouraged that sounds distinctly freemanish.

Person has debt to company, about to be taken to court. Was told to let it run, once they get the court documents all they have to do is pay a small amount and the court proceedings will have to be dropped and restarted because the documents will be for an incorrect amount. Rinse and repeat, presumably intent being to delay the case indefinitely.

That has to be bull, right? I'd have thought the payment would be noted and when it got to court the solicitor/barrister would just say to the judge, "well, we got E10 off them recently, so now we're just looking for x-E10." judge "grand so, lets get started."

Long time fan of the thread :pac:

Supplemental affidavit setting out the up to date figures is common.

Obviously the tactic is utter horse****

rameire

Ben of the Family Gimproy put the following up on his facemuck

Tom defeated AIB some weeks ago they brought another case against him and he blew them out today again with costs

Big Tings Darcy has the following on his facemuck

Master dismisses AIB ' SECOND Case against Me.

are they spoofing again and understanding it in their own magical fairyland way I wonder.

rameire

this is Big Ting Darcy speaking on the Vincent Browne People Debate show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX5sLl56PCw

this is posted as a reply to the video on his facemuck

by a Mr D. L.

Looking at the reports on Tom's case; he seems to be saying that he won his case regarding the banking licenses etc ... my relocation of the case was that his wife's legal team managed to secure the property for her as she wasn't party to his massive property debts. And I do remember seeing a high court report from back around June of last year that said that Tom couldn't show any evidence as to how the financial position of the bank at the time could make the debt illegal. It seems that Tom is making claims that are not actually accurate at all !!! ... anyway .. like all failed developers it will be us the taxpayers that will pay the bill in the end ...

edit, the comment above has now been deleted from his facemuck page.