Constitution Halts Sheriff Video

Tom Young

Oh and in that you are wrong yet again. See the cases of: R (Cottingham) v Justices of County Cork [190] 2 IR 415 and Shannon Regional Fisheries Board v Cavan County Council [1996] 3 IR 267.

The Kenny and Charleton dispute is entirely different. It dealt with Adverse Possession.

You really are just trolling on this thread at this stage and we have a charter rule for dealing with this.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Actually, people who overborrowed on the back of inflated property prices were one of the primary reasons why our nation is in such dire straights. Something for you to think about.

That's an a very narrow perspective. You very well read on the financial background and i would not have expected such a comment from you.

The market does not exist without buyers and sellers. That is how a market works. Do not blame the buyer or the seller and should you then forgo Ireland ever returning to the international market as ireland is rated junk in your opinion only a fool would buy our bonds. Is that what you wish for our struggling financial sector.

The Goverment was required to manage and regulate our credit/ monetary policy.

Our financial regulator was ignored and the plethora of financial reports from the department of finance were ignored. Yet you blame the people who purchase houses from mortgages from our banks. Banks that traded in CFD's illegally amounting to debts they could never pay off.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0202/breaking3.html

The bank sought to have the loans disguised as property and other loans but knew they were to fund margin calls on CfD positions taken out in Anglo by Sean Quinn senior via a Madeira-registered company Bazzely so as to avoid the 24 per cent Quinn shareholding being made public knowledge, Mr O’Moore said.

The bank engaged in “very serious illegal activity” on a “persistent, ongoing basis” involving an “egregious” and “almost deliberate” breach of laws carrying penalties of €10 million and/or a maximum ten-year jail sentence, it was claimed.

China is an example of excellent regulation. It simply stops lending when required. It doesn't interfere in the buying and selling in the market other than setting quotas.

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

Oh and in that you are wrong yet again. See the cases of: R (Cottingham) v Justices of County Cork [190] 2 IR 415 and Shannon Regional Fisheries Board v Cavan County Council [1996] 3 IR 267.

The Kenny and Charleton dispute is entirely different. It dealt with Adverse Possession.

You really are just trolling on this thread at this stage and we have a charter rule for dealing with this.

You good, very good at the law but don't resort to calling people trolls. If you would like to set up law.ie and have selective membership then please go for it.

This a public forum and I do not have to agree with you when you are clearly wrong.

1. To say giant institutions such a this bank have feelings and suffer emotional turmoil when a home owner remain on the property of the possessed house is ridiculous.

I think you mean this case:
National Rivers Authority v. Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd

This has more to do with liability. The legalistic person in a corportation is summed up at the end of the findings. I wont argue with you but it would appear an officer is the legal person in a company.

Do officers have feelings.. i think an officer of the bank would not feel emotional turmoil over a previous house owner remaining on possessed property and would expected to follow policy and procedure in a professional manner.


http://www.lawlibrary.ie/docs/Bar_Review_3(9)_1998__Criminal_Liability_for_Environmental_P/98.htm

Thus, it would appear that a company could only be convicted of an offence where that offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect of senior officers in the company and that, accordingly, a prosecution of an 'officer' of the company will always be appropriate wherever the company itself is convicted.


I think maybe you have had led a sheltered life. Beaten by an novice and a man of the world.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

If you watch this video, which appears on Mr. Gilroy's website "Freedom From All Debt" (my emphasis) you will notice that he hits all the Freeman buzzwords.

In the original video you'll also notice that he claims the Gardaí must uphold "Common Law".

Another good indicator is that the video linked above does not use the official translation of the Constitution but actually refers to the Oireachtas Committees report on the literal translations from the Irish and the potential conflicts that arise as a result. This is a classic Freeman tactic.

At the risk of you accusing me of being the modern Irish equivalent of HUAC; if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and it quacks: it's a duck. To paraphrase Shakespeare to equal effect: A Freeman by any other name is just as full of ****.

I did i watched some of it and i noted the case Crowley v Ireland ([1980] IR102) Justice kenny pointed out that the Irish version of the constitution brought out more clearly the definition of article 42.4 namely the distinction between the duty to provide for and the duty to provide it.

Is that the quack of a duck? Are judges Ducks in your view?

You expect me to believe they are Freeman because they used the Oireachtas Committees report irish version of the constitution.

It's indicative of a Freeman when you add all the elements that I listed above together. Each one on its own wouldn't indicate a Freeman (possibly with the exception of the "common law" comment by Gilroy) but put them together and it's pretty clear.

Your second point is facile and, as such, I won't address it.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

It's indicative of a Freeman when you add all the elements that I listed above together. Each one on its own wouldn't indicate a Freeman (possibly with the exception of the "common law" comment by Gilroy) but put them together and it's pretty clear.

Your second point is facile and, as such, I won't address it.

Kayroo, i watched your video, i spent valuable time examining it for freeman propaganda and all i witnessed was Ben Gilroy discussing various articles of the constitution is his own intelligent manner which, and correct me if i am wrong; he is constitutionally and lawfully entitled to do.

Your freeman Trolls. Poor Tom and his emotionally unstable 'officers'.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

That's an a very narrow perspective. You very well read on the financial background and i would not have expected such a comment from you.

I'm not saying that the government, regulators and indeed banks themselves didn't play a significant role themselves - they did.

But it would be wrong to underplay the significant role played by the borrowers. They made a poor financial decision and should have to live with the consequences.

Now, as a nation, I believe we can ameliorate those consequences somewhat, by bankruptscy protection in extreme cases, additional TRS in marginal cases, and a system of debt forgiveness in between. But anyone who gets the benefit of debt forgiveness or a write down must lose the house that they purchased. Otherwise, it is unfair on the men and women who were prudent with their money and are now denied the opportunity that should have been theirs, but for the actions of a reckless borrower.

Why should the fool get better treatment than the hard worker? That's essentially what you are advocating.

OK, I assume we all now know Pirelli is just trolling right?

Nobody is that contrary.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, I assume we all now know Pirelli is just trolling right?

Nobody is that contrary.

Daragh666 Magic Sean Benway freudian slipppers and maybe johnny skeleton.

Always the same persons! There 7500 views on this thread. Seeking out a thank you off these same person again, and again, and again which amounts to 0.078% of the viewers is the same as trolling.

Your trolling Kayroo but i have a question?

Is calling someone a Freeman defamatory, and if not, then why is it not; if in your opinion these people are evil?

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

Daragh666 Magic Sean Benway freudian slipppers and maybe johnny skeleton.

Always the same persons! There 7500 views on this thread. Seeking out a thank you off these same person again, and again, and again which amounts to 0.078% of the viewers is the same as trolling.

Your trolling Kayroo but i have a question?

Is calling someone a Freeman defamatory, and if not, then why is it not; if in your opinion these people are evil?

I would consider myself defamed if someone where to publish something stating that i believed in the Freeman stuff.

pirelli

MagicSean wrote: »

I would consider myself defamed if someone where to publish something stating that i believed in the Freeman stuff.

Is this an anti-freeman/legal savvy/turns a blind eye group versus pirelli/hardworking/likes the underdog/prefers manure to deceit?


That's obviously just tripe Magicsean otherwise Kayroo would have to delete all his defamatory posts...unless Kayroo has just created the first Freeman defamation suit. That must be trolling.

Our man in Havana

Freemen are nuts. That is all.

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

Is this an anti-freeman/legal savvy/turns a blind eye group versus pirelli/hardworking/likes the underdog/prefers manure to deceit?


That's obviously just tripe Magicsean otherwise Kayroo would have to delete all his defamatory posts...unless Kayroo has just created the first Freeman defamation suit. That must be trolling.

Anyone who works in the justice system or the courts would have to consider it defamation to be called a freeman as it would imply they had no knowledge of the law and no respect for the courts.

pirelli

MagicSean wrote: »

Anyone who works in the justice system or the courts would have to consider it defamation to be called a freeman as it would imply they had no knowledge of the law and no respect for the courts.

Human resources..employment sector, business and legal, legal dept. it would encompass alot more than just the justice system or the courts. If it shuns a person in the mind of a right thinking person.

finty

pirelli wrote: »

Human resources..employment sector, business and legal, legal dept. it would encompass alot more than just the justice system or the courts. If it shuns a person in the mind of a right thinking person.

your posts are giving me a headache.....have you been drinking?

pirelli

finty wrote: »

your posts are giving me a headache.....have you been drinking?

The correlation being if I drink you get a headache. Have you been snorting coke because when i read your posts i want to smack you up.

finty

pirelli wrote: »

The correlation being if I drink you get a headache.

Amazing logic to draw that conclusion.....about the standard of the rest of your thinking