Freeman Megamerge

benway

No bench warrants in civil cases, if a judge finds that someone is in contempt and needs to be brought before the court, s/he issues an attachment order.

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.

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/fca924f83c240fae80256d2b0046b3fd?OpenDocument

relax carry on

My favorite freemen keep on giving.

Letter to Revenue from Attack the Tax.


Dear Michael, and Josephine,

It is with regret that we feel we must intervene and try to bring extreme clarity to the current situation. We have held a meeting and it has been decided that it would be unethical of the senior management to withhold honest information within our possession which we intend to use in the approaching Supreme Court hearing of our case involving your good selves the Revenue Commissioners, from our Shareholders.
It is our wish and indeed the wish of ALL of our Shareholders that you Michael Gladney and You Josephine Feehily answer ALL questions contained within this legal notice requiring clarity. For Clarity it is our contention that you Cannot and indeed will do ALL in your powers to NOT answer these honest questions.

Firstly:- Will you kindly definitively define the word “income” in relation to but not limited to “Income tax” and the “income tax Acts”?
1. Are salaries defined as income?
2. Are commissions defined as income?
3. Are tips defined as income?
4. Are wages defined as income?
5. Is a man or a woman’s labour, which is their private property, which is fairly exchanged, defined as income?
6. Define the word “employment” It being a legal fact, that the definition of the word “employment” in Law is “The relationship between Master and Servant”
7. How can Revenue or the State define any of the honest hardworking Irish People as “Servants” when it is Revenue and the Government of the State whom are Servants?
8. Isn’t it a Fact that Revenue and the State ONLY hold the Authority to Tax Emoluments which are legally defined as “Any Advantage, Profit, or Gain Received as a result of one’s Employment, or one’s holding of Office.
9. How can Revenue or the State justify it’s stance/claim that The people of Ireland whom possess inalienable, Indefeasible and Sovereign Rights to possess their own freedom, can ever be “Employed” or “Hold an Office” which is, in Fact beneath them?
Secondly:- Are ALL the people living on this Island known to you as Ireland (excluding the persons living on the portion of the Island known as “Northern Ireland”) “individuals” whom are, and are required to be “resident”, “ordinarily resident” and “domiciled” in your “State” also known as IRELAND?
Thirdly:- Isn’t it a Fact that any of the People whom live in the “State” also known as “IRELAND” Can Abandon his or her Country, or his or her right of Citizenship acquired by means of naturalisation in any country in which he or she may have taken up his or her residence?
Fourthly:- Isn’t it a Fact that if some of the people living on this Island decide they have had enough of your bullyboy tactics and harassment and trespass upon their lives, could tell you and you agents, and your Principal (the State) to just Go Away, keep All it’s purported Benefits, and leave them in peace, and there is Nothing you, All the Revenue Commissioners and the State, can do about this?
Fifthly:- Isn’t it a Fact that, if someone were to proclaim themselves and their property free from the State, neither you Michael Gladney nor you Josephine Feehily nor your Principal the State, or any of it’s agents have any right(s) whatsoever to tax or request money in any form, from them in or under any context or guise whatsoever?
Finally (For now):- Ms. Fehilly, you have stated in your capacity as “Chairman” on various fora that you "Tax by CONSENT". If this is so, why therefore, do you persist in yours and your agents threatening and intimidating behaviour towards, but not limited to the following people, PAYE workers, the Self Employed, Single Parents, Widows/Widowers, Old Age Pensioners, Disabled People and their Carers, the Sick and Elderly, Job seekers, and Blind People.
Your actions have DIRE CONSEQUENCES for all of the above mentioned, and such actions as but certainly not limited to Yours and Revenue’s and your Principal’s use of Court Summons’ ATTACHMENT Orders and ACTION by the SHERIFF whom you allege can break down peoples doors, if they do not comply with your Draconian demands.
In spite of the clearly expressed desires of our shareholders and others to Withhold their Consent, in relation to the unfair, unjust and unconstitutional Household Charge, Property Tax, Water Tax and all OTHER such STEALTH Taxes, which you are attempting to impose, and which do not take into account a person’s ABILITY TO PAY.
As a result of which, by your Taxes which you must have been involved in the calculation of same in some context, will you kindly explain to the Irish People Why it is that a person on a fixed income of say €10,000 (TEN THOUSAND EURO) is being asked to pay up to €2,000 (In Cities) in property Tax alone, which is 20% Percent or ONE FIFTH of his/her meagre allowance, while a POLITICIAN with combined earnings of in excess of €400,000 will only pay the same €2000 in Property Tax, or half a percent. (HALF of ONE PERCENT, which equates to practically NOTHING in comparison to the above equation) If the old age pensioner is being asked to pay 40 times more than his/her fair share, is this what you refer to as a "Progressive Tax System" where people who earn more pay more, Isn’t it a Fact that the complete opposite is true.
For the Avoidance of ALL Doubt:- It is Not, and it was Never our intention to interfere with the Pyramid Scheme nature of your Tax system, but if you and your Principal refuse to abandon these unbelievable and unlawful attacks on the absolute rights of the ordinary decent People of this Island to own property (not limited to houses etc.) We are more than prepared to lawfully meet you head on, and expose you All for the liars and cheats that you All are.
Education is Power, and it’s now time to educate the people in the ways of the State. We feel Fourteen (14) days is quite sufficient for such educated persons as your good selves to Answer ALL of the valid and lawful Questions raised herein, and owing to your respective “Offices” you are duty bound to Answer ALL of the same questions. If or when you FAIL, REFUSE and/or NEGLECT to answer, and or Rebut ALL of the herein questions, it will be taken by us and the people, and understood by you as a matter of LAW, that you Cannot, and All of the Above is FACTUAL and TRUE.

In Sincerity and Honour,

____________________________________________
For & on behalf of Acorn to Oak Communications Plc.

Robbo

jd wrote: »

Report here

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0530/business/couple-lose-court-action-against-lender-270406.html

Why is it that they can never find debtors who you might feel genuine sympathy for? Inflated loan applications, spending sprees, many expensive cars and extensive leveraged property portfolios; real man of the people stuff there

Here's yet another judgment where a lay litigant gets his arse handed to him when he tries to allege that no loan exists, money was fraudulently created, securitisation means he owes nothing and that receivers weren't appointed correctly.

Of course, all of these will be hailed as victories and there'll be talk of a Supreme Court appeal.

I have no idea what enactment covers the removal of election posters but if it's a criminal penalty, which I assume it is, will Ben's failure to remove his posters mean his suspended sentence becomes active?

I literally have no idea by the way. Just musing on a thought

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no idea what enactment covers the removal of election posters but if it's a criminal penalty, which I assume it is, will Ben's failure to remove his posters mean his suspended sentence becomes active?

I literally have no idea by the way. Just musing on a thought

It's on the spot fines from litter wardens which progress to court if unpaid. If found guilty then I guess he runs the risk of arrest

No Pants

That communication posted by relax...could we not just play them at their own game?

Send their kids home from school, bar them fro hospitals and tell the Gardai and Fire Brigade to ignore them unless they commit a crime. Put a toll booth at the end of their driveways.

Cut off dole, child benefit, etc. too.

Essien

No Pants wrote: »

That communication posted by relax...could we not just play them at their own game?

Send their kids home from school, bar them fro hospitals and tell the Gardai and Fire Brigade to ignore them unless they commit a crime. Put a toll booth at the end of their driveways.

Cut off dole, child benefit, etc. too.

No, The great thing about the freemanism is that the rules only apply to something that's a hindrance to them. Essentially, receiving any form of benefit from the state is fair game, actually paying for any of them is not.

relax carry on

Essien wrote: »

No, The great thing about the freemanism is that the rules only apply to something that's a hindrance to them. Essentially, receiving any form of benefit from the state is fair game, actually paying for any of them is not.

I keep checking their Facebook page for updates as it's comedy gold really.

On a more serious note, some of the comments on their various missives make me doubt some peoples sanity.

For Forks Sake

Robbo wrote: »

Here's yet another judgment where a lay litigant gets his arse handed to him when he tries to allege that no loan exists, money was fraudulently created, securitisation means he owes nothing and that receivers weren't appointed correctly.

Of course, all of these will be hailed as victories and there'll be talk of a Supreme Court appeal.

I like that judges style...

In my view the phrases “fanciful” and “completely devoid of merit” are very appropriate to describe this argument and indeed significantly more robust language would be justified. Quite simply the plaintiff drew down funds and thereby took on the responsibility to repay. What the source of these funds was matters not a whit.

jd

Robbo wrote: »

Here's yet another judgment where a lay litigant gets his arse handed to him when he tries to allege that no loan exists, money was fraudulently created, securitisation means he owes nothing and that receivers weren't appointed correctly.

Of course, all of these will be hailed as victories and there'll be talk of a Supreme Court appeal.

Arthur Cox have something on this

http://www.arthurcox.com/publications/lay-litigants-currency-vexing-issue-financial-institutions/

CONCLUSION

The Court made an order striking out the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants, describing the proceedings as “so unmeritorious indeed as to amount to an abuse of process.” Costs of the application were subsequently awarded to the Defendants.

This is the first occasion on which the High Court has struck out a claim of this nature brought by a lay litigant. The judgment is an important precedent for all lenders currently considering enforcement options against borrowers who suggest they have no obligation to repay loans they have drawn down. It also sends a clear message to lay litigants that the courts will not tolerate vexatious arguments seeking to invalidate lending transactions freely entered into in an attempt to avoid having to repay borrowed monies

.

jd

jd wrote: »

Arthur Cox have something on this

http://www.arthurcox.com/publications/lay-litigants-currency-vexing-issue-financial-institutions/

.

I'd be more impressed by Arthur Cox if the statement that it's the first time the Court has struck one of these out was even remotely true.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be more impressed by Arthur Cox if the statement that it's the first time the Court has struck one of these out was even remotely true.

God bless them for trying anyway

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Of course, all of these will be hailed as victories and there'll be talk of a Supreme Court appeal.

We won; lets appeal.

Makes more sense than any Freeman argument.

marieholmfan

My opinion on these people is quite confused.

In a sense I sympathise with the freemen and their victims because they see rich people hiding assets, establishing trusts - (remember the tax treatment of the Dunne Family Trust?) , moving assets to unlimited Isle of Man companies, buying companies with €45 million in debt which gets written off, having a PD reinvent land law so that they can block off access to a beach and just plain breaking the law and getting away with it.

On the other their attitude is gombeenism; they don't want to fix the system they want special treatment too.

I have complained about these people to the law society as in my opinion they are charging for nonsensical legal advice. The law is what the judge says it is and all the wishful thinking in the world doesn't change that. I think that by charging for this nonsense they really cross a line.

Hopefully their victims will realise that the law is as equal as the Ritz Hotel and be energised to change that.

Robbo

My lovely Horse, running through the field. Where are you going with your fetlocks blowing in the wind?

Running from your debts, it seems.

Like a train in the night, like a train in the night...

whippet

Robbo wrote: »

My lovely Horse, running through the field. Where are you going with your fetlocks blowing in the wind?

Running from your debts, it seems.

Like a train in the night, like a train in the night...

it's great to see Ben Gilroy and his task force stick up for the down trodden .. the poor unfortunates who are on the breadline and with the green running from their mouths as they eat the grass in the fields.

Between McDeromtt and Darcy he has picked a strange bunch to stand up for ... Poor auld Darcy living for free in his big house!! you'd swear he might have some financial incentive for helping these types

hullaballoo

Interesting story linked at the bottom of the page there as well.

Losty Dublin

As mentioned in another thread, this week Tony Rochford is after the water meters. He got a wee fine on top of it as well.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-gets-injunctions-to-stop-irish-water-from-installing-meter-271284.html

Robbo

Hungry Tony Rochford was granted an interim injunction (ex parte) preventing a water meter being installed. It'll be up again on the 23rd which is incidentally Ben's next schedule appearance.

And here's the published Freeman judgment.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

And here's the published Freeman judgment.

Link isn't working; it's bringing us back here.

Little CuChulainn

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Link isn't working; it's bringing us back here.

Perhaps it's a commentary on the circular and pointless nature of freeman actions.

Robbo

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Link isn't working; it's bringing us back here.

Link fixed.

The background is classic "we all partied" tales of Celtic Tiger excess. Borrowing an extra €600k for the craic, inflating your earnings, "expensive motor vehicles" and a $60k in US Dollar transactions in less than a year.

31. There was compelling evidence before the court that the plaintiffs furnished misleading information to BOSI at the time when they applied for the loans. They gave grossly inflated figures about the net profit from the first named defendant’s window cleaning business in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, when it was clear that the business was something of a sideline for the plaintiffs and that they only derived a modest income from it. Notice of assessment of that business for the year ending 31st December, 2006, assessed Income Tax at €605.

jd

More nonsense in Wexford (it should be available online later this week)

A MAN had to be escorted from court .. after the judge rebuked him: ‘What you're talking is total and utter rubbish!'

Patrick Roche of 22 Silverwood, Ferrybank, Waterford appeared before Wexford District Court to answer to charges..

Representing himself, Roche argued that Sgt O'Gorman had ‘no lawful reason to stop him' ... Roche said: ‘I do not consent to any Act', before asking Sgt O'Gorman to define the term ‘traffic'.’.
...
Roche then asked to see Judge Haugton's Oath of Office..
...
‘I take full responsibility for everything I do,' replied Judge Haughton before handing down a fine of €2,000 and a two-year disqualification for no insurance and a fine of €300 on each of the other four charges. ‘You can take that out of my bond sir,' replied Roche who continued to talk.
..

Frank Grimes

jd wrote: »

More nonsense in Wexford (it should be available online later this week)

It's like something from a Monty Python sketch.

whippet

Frank Grimes wrote: »

It's like something from a Monty Python sketch.

would it be this same patrick roche from another more sobering court appearance in 2004

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/wexfordpeople/news/motorist-disqualified-for-two-years-27688366.html

Hoffmans

jd wrote: »

More nonsense in Wexford (it should be available online later this week)

Is there a link to this story cause it looks like you have edited/ censored some of the content?

jd

Hoffmans wrote: »

Is there a link to this story cause it looks like you have edited/ censored some of the content?

The Wexford People still haven't put it online. I was not going to type out the whole article (laziness and it wouldn't be fair use )

relax carry on

More from my favourite freemen via their Facebook page. Basically advising their members to lodge a criminal complaint against Revenue/the State/Elvis about the collection of the property tax.Would love to be a fly on the wall in that Garda station.


have ye lodged a "Criminal Complaint" with An Garda Siochana?
prepare a statement in writing ... report/repeat it "word for word" to the Garda taking your complaint ... the Garda will write it all down again in his or her own handwriting ... put at the end of the statement "reserving the right to further supplement this statement with further data, information, evidence, statements, proofs etc." ... That means you can now attach further stuff to the initial complaint. DO NOT LEAVE the Garda Station without a "Pulse ID Number" ... this means that your complaint has been lodged ,,, and you can now post letters, data, information, evidence, proofs etc. to the Garda under the "Pulse ID Number" on the record and on the file. Q.E.D.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.