From You Tuber freedomfromalldebt:
Yesterday (February 20) the deputy Sheriff arrived at another Irish family home to repossess it and give the keys to the bank in Co Laois. Thus putting another Irish family onto the streets. Ben Gilroy from FreedomFromAllDebt.com questions the sheriff outside the gates to the house
And a fascinating, if confusing, constitutional debate ensues.
Thanks Han
I’ll watch later… too long for now!
Thanks for that Ive updated the spelling on that -
Although you could have just emailed that directly.
You need to have someone proofread your website – another error;
“Know you rights, Know your Constution!
We feel that one of the most important things to know is your Irish Constution!”
Getting the words right will help your group to be taken seriously. Just a but of friendly advice.
*bit
freedomfromalldebt.com? Sweet sufferin Jaysus, what an embarrassment. This eejit can’t even spell the word ‘donate’ on his website.
You’d think with his legal background he’d know not to use the Irish Sovereign seal on his website also.
a little bit of information is a dangerous thing. these organisations are giving vulnerable people false information and false hope
So let me get this straight: Education is a bad thing for the common person now?
Surely if you were in that situation you would be very glad that somebody would be willing to stand in your corner.
education is a wonderful thing for every person (i don’t know exactly what a common person is). my point is that this man is clearly not educated on the law and is giving false information and this is very dangerous if people then rely upon it.
i just wonder will he be there when the homeowner is held in contempt?
if he actually did educate himself on the law he would serve these people better and not get them in more trouble than they’re already in.
@ Bren
For education do you mean ‘programmed’? So that anybody turning up at your door with a piece of paper and a couple of Guards can just walk in and take everything you own?
this man is just carrying out the orders of the court as is his job. he doesn’t need to be an expert on constitutional law or be able to argue the merits of repossession law to do this.
i would say that the person making the orders, the county reg in this case does need to know the law and this is the person to have the argument with not with the agent who is executing the order. it would seem from the exchange that the homeowner had had the opportunity to argue his case and the law in front of the county reg and lost.
it is not a case of some randomer turning up and ‘taking everything you own’. he has been given the authority by the court in accordance with the law.
The point in the video is the the sheriff’s agent has NOT been “given the authority by the court in accordance with the law.”
So he has to leave.
I agree with bren, to me it looks like all they have managed to do is kick the can down the road a bit. This is simply putting off a repo procedure till another day. Unfortunately in this country banks ALWAYS get their way, they can bully anyone, especially our government.
Erroneous. Everything he says seems reasonable to me. It is because of this reason that an injuction has been applied for ( we shall have to take the word of the green jumper man in this regard ) …….It appears absolutely wrong that for counties except Dublin and Cork ( therefore it is only these counties where such a ruling if applicable could apply ) that the registrar of the court and the county sheriff are one in the same person. It is up for a higher court to decide on this issue and on this basis the sherriff could not have legally entered or taken ownership of the mans house ( without his consent ) The sherriff as the green jumper man correctly states do receive commission for succesful judgement enforcement. Other comments on this thread say “why is this only being raised now etc” – in many cases of repossession consent is provided by the owner. Once consent is recieved it is game over – you are waiving your rights to contest. The green jumper man again correctly states that many many people simply do not understand the options. I think this is an interesting video which demostrates that the sherriff clearly has no legal knowledge nor I suspect the Garda who actually maintained a kind of dignified indifference to the whole issue. It is a great example of how informed comment and confidence will at least buy some time.
i absolutely agree that it is more than a bit dodgy that the county registrar is also the sheriff and if true, is receiving commission from this. and there are judicial review procedures that are open to the homeowner. however this doesn’t take away from the fact that he has defaulted on his mortgage.
we dont know the ins and outs here and to what extent the bank made to work with the homeowner to come to some sort of payment agreement. So rather than being entirely one sided (which all of your posts appear to have been so far) would you not allow a resolution to be found as opposed to eviction which should always be the last rung of the ladder.
We dont even know the scale of the debt in this instance either. Yet we have millionaires swanning around with their family homes entirely protected owing hundreds upon hundreds of millions to banks. What do these guys get? – A salary to advise the NTMA of where their own debts lie. Im concerned that someone that outwardly appears fairly coherent is writing posts that come entirely down on the side of an illegal sheriff as such is demonstrated in this clip.
my original post was concerned with ben gilroy and organistions like his giving vulnerable people false hope and false information. i think this is extremely damaging to people in an already precarious situation. he is not in a position to give accurate advice on the law.
i volunteer with flac and meet people who are in trouble with their mortgages. Many have made a bad situation worse by listening to people like him. Advising them not to engage with their mortgage lenders or not answering court summonses etc.
i can only go on the information that is in the video but there seems to have been a court process and an order of repossession has been granted which in my mind would mean that all other avenues have been examined and this is the last resort. i have no desire to see people thrown out of their homes and i think people should get informed with the right information. but this guy is not helping anyone. and i am not coming down on the side of the sheriff (no proof he is illegal as yet)
as i have said before i do think it is bizarre that the county reg is also the sheriff and there are judicial review procedures that can be used here.
My original point and only point is that there is a hearing mentioned in the courts which may find the relationship between the registrar and the sheriff to be unconstitutional. it may not. I never made any commnet about the actual repossession – I think it goes with out saying, but i will so nonetheless, repossession orders on the family home are only applicable after significant arrears and various other avenues have been explored – which in many cases takes 24months at least.
Classic case of shooting the messenger. The guy from the sheriff’s office is painfully ill-informed. Surely he should be dealing with the house owner rather than a rabble?
People who ignore the law of the land….
Someone wants to stay in their house and not pay the mortgage.
It’s ok mate, I’ll pay it for you.
My shoulders are not that heavy yet.
You already paid it.
How? His mortgage was with Ulster bank.
Ha! Your paying for the millions of loans handed out to developers. Those bunch of ignorant money chasers are happy living in their safe guarded ‘family’ homes… what say you to that ?
If he is the Sheriff where is his badge and his 6 gun and horse ?
If this was Nottingham
Where is his tights ?
why is this even getting any publicity? It’s nothing to do with him. Mortgage payments not kept up, house will eventually be repossessed. Bank owns house until mortgage is paid.
Bank does not own the house until the mortgage is paid, it is not a hire purchase agreement.
Ridiculous…. this is an incorrect interpretation of our constitution. This man has a very poor grasp of law.
“Common law dates back to the time of Christ” – guffaw!
He actually says “since before the time of christ”.
Oh well, that’s much better…. *rollseyes*
Leave him off a few yarnish comments – the crux of what he states is bang on. A court ( based on what he says ) will decide if it is appropriate that the county court registrar and county sheriff are one and the same person ( except for dublin and cork – so no basis of argument here ) . Until the court rules on this, possession of the mans home would appear to unconstitutional. The court regularly considers matters of “reason” and “moral correctness” as being important factors in supporting the intention of the constitution. Granted he made some strange comments but his manner in dealing with the sherriff and Garda were first class – non agressive and confident. Usually a stumbling block of most people in such situations. No arrest for breach of peace etc is well played.
So according to his interpretation of the Constitution, if I borrow money to buy a house, and don’t the money back, I can still keep my house soely because it is physically impossible for to come a reclaim it? I mean, by that logic if you take out a mortgage, paying it back is 100% optional. Surely that’s not a reasonable interpretation of the constitution, or a fair way to conduct your business?
Did I get miss something in that exchange?
The part of the constitution he’s quoting is “The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.”
Except he left out the “save in accordance with law” part, i.e. a court sanctioned warrant.
Listen again. He didn’t leave out “save in accordance with law”, he challenged the warrant and the sheriff’s agent backed down, because the man who owns the house has not broken the law.
He claims that the sheriff would have had to come with a signed referendum to the constitution!
That is incorrect. In accordance with the law covers the case where another party has a legal claim over your property. Say in a breach of contract scenario – such as not paying your mortgage.
That’s commercial law, not common law.
Zuppy, the points still stands – saying you cant enter someone’s house is the same as saying they cannot reposes, ie you are free to repay your mortgage or not as there are no consequences. You’re simply using a Common Law principle to facilitate people not repaying their debts. That’s nonsense.
If that’s what you are advocating then why would any bank ever loan money??
@ Roddy
You’re assuming that the bank actually has a legally enforceable loan agreement with the householder.
Do they for instance have an original copy of the loan agreement signed by him?
And can they prove that the loan made to the householder was backed by an actual asset under the bank’s control? Or did they simply (and fraudulently) create digital money to advance to the householder?
And have the issued his a legal ‘wet-ink’ invoice signed by a human being for the balance of money he owes?
If these conditions are not met then the bank cannot enforce the debt. Most people, embarrassed and intimidated by legal action, don’t challenge the banks on these basic points. But that may be changing…
The banks are abusing the court process to enforce these ‘fake debts’. If you challenge them (like this guy / did) chances are they will back down.
The man doesn’t own the house until the loan is paid off.
Actually the man does own the house. The deeds are in his name however as the deeds are stored with the bank as collateral , the ts & cs of the loan allow the Bank to repossess on this basis.
Think you are ALL missing the point. This is a good eg of a legal stalling tactic being employed. There is a reasonable argument that the fact that the man who signed the warrant for the courts to facilitate the reposession of the house will profit financially from enforcing same. This is wrong and should long ago have been changed – but it is up for a higher court to rule on this. In law the mans home cannot be repossessed while an application in this regard is mentioned before the courts ( and we have to take the green jumper mans word that this is so – as he said it is due for mention in April ). Also worth pointing out that this is not arguable for respossessions in dublin or cork ( again per his statement as the sherriff is not court registrar in these counties ) If a new seperate registrar is appointed who is not the sherriff I see no reason why a legal repossession could not take place.
Fantastic. This video made my day.
“How to take on the banksters and their shills 101″.
He’s a bit of a know it all, isnt he?
unfortunately for the homeowner he knows very little
This poor sod has the misfortune in having his mortgage with one of those non nationalised foreign banks so its the door for him and pay the shortfall. You won’t see this with AIB mortgages as the government is too afraid to kick these debt dodgers out of their houses and we all get ot pay to keep them in there. Any chance you’d all chip in to pay my rent?
Kicking them out wont help anything and we know that from previous recessions around the world. What we need to do is keep them in theri homes and squeeze them for every cent they’ve got.
Kicking them out will allow somebody else to purchase the property for a reasonable price and get the market functioning normally. The prudent will be rewarded for taking a decade of shit.
There are pleny of homes out there for sale Tommy, I dont think the market is exactly swamped at the moment. And if you so choose to you can get a home for 1997 Moneys at this stage. So i dont get why you’d need to kick people out? More homes on the market ? How does others negative equity benefit you personally ?
@Billy
The Government can’t be all that afraid. The Local Authorities and District Councils have been at this repo lark for a while.
Made it about 9.15 until Nazi Germany was mentioned, Godwin’s law prevails!
The Sherriff’s department is a private company, is that true? That can’t be true. I mean; paid on commission?
Court Officers Act 1945 which amended the 1926 Act by providing that whenever a vacancy occurred in an office of under-sheriff, a new sheriff could be appointed who would perform such functions as the Minister for Justice specified. (It also provided for the transfer of defined functions from the County Registrars to sheriffs.) This power was exercised in relation to Dublin City and County and Cork City and County. Hence the existence in these areas of sheriffs who are usually solicitors and who, as has been noted, are remunerated on the basis of “poundage”, i.e. a commission on the sums which they actually recover.
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rDebtCollection1.htm
Absolutely. Sherriff is paid a fixed fee for every judgement enforcement. Success fees only. Also his fees are paid first before other debt discharged.
Get houses you can afford. That way you won’t get repossessed.
+10000
Far too many cribbing and moaning and citing their “entitlements”
Move out and rent if you can’t afford your mortgage. Boo hoo. Next case…
Yes, indeed, it is really that simple.
RUBBISH.
Look at the gaff or at least the entrance.. Does it look like someone’s ‘dream house’ ??
I’d say this is a re-mortgage job and the value plummeted soon after.
The bank probably advised the owner to re-mortgage.
You’re right. There should be no personal responsibility ever.
+1. Best comment on here!
The man was quite clever actually; he never told the deputy sheriff, definitively, that he couldn’t come onto the property. He just questioned and confused him in vague language until he left. The deputy then doubted his own knowledge of the law and was afraid of breaking it.
Citizens can’t enforce the law like that. Even if it is bad law, or law that contradicts the constitution, not until the legislature rewrites it or a judge overrules it.
They only asked the deputy sheriff to wait for their case to come before court, I don’t think wasn’t obliged to wait.
The deputy left so as to not to escalate the situation. Hopefully, he came back when this ignorant rabble dispersed.
The deputy did himself a disservice by engaging with this nonsense. Is he really supposed to be have to discuss the merits of bank bailouts with some smartarse?
No, but he should be able to defend the warrant he was trying to serve. He was unable to. Sheriff’s agent fail.
He is right about one thing. It is not our debt, the debt belongs to the man who signed over title to the house to borrow money to pay for it. Therefor he should pay his debt.
Almost everything else he said was absolute nonsense.
such narrow minded people in this country evict families so houses can be sold cheaper.Banks are not lending and it is not the fault of the majority of people in difficulty through job losses .Like it says in the video did we evict the banks ,who in Anglo is in prison …get my point Tommy.
After the government has spent huge amounts of money on differentd reports .what have they implemented oh yeah the banks will look after the people in trouble they got us there.Stop paying unsecured bond holders that would kick start the country
Ah jaysus love sur you havnt a clue do ya? Spounting your populist shite, member of the United Leftie Alliance are ya? Clare Daly is that you? Laws of the land. Personal accountability and taking responsibility- remember those?
What crime to do you think was committed at Anglo that made the housing bubble and this guy’s decision to buy a house at the wrong price any worse.
No doubt there were crimes at Anglo related to accounting and the share sale etc but that’s got nothing to do with anything that’s really impacting these people.
You are a genius, in one sentence you ask what crime Anglo has committed, in the next you specify that they have committed a crime. Of course the two are linked. If Anglo operated legally, a lot of the shi* would not have happened.
Very interesting debate at the gate. Painful interview afterwards.
These Freemen are going to get a lot of naive people into a whole heap of trouble with their mortgage companies by peddling such rubbish.
Not correct. Legalese has been used to keep the public ill-informed to gain profits. Unfortunately if people are on the verge of collapse why not try this route? I believe you should pay back your debts however the Bankers & Banks don’t seem to. More importantly, was no-one perturbed by the fact that the Sheriff and Judge were one in the same?
Yes, very much so!!
It highlights a few things. The sheriff did not know his job and the guards were not on solid ground being there. I’m not saying these para legal guff merchants are right, but there is a kernel of truth in all this that people are being baffled with legalistic bullshit and are not getting much help from credible sources.
Perhaps a few keyboard lawyers here who have time on their hands would look into this stuff and offer free, coherent advice as an antidote to this type of stuff. The process of repossession is pretty traumatic and those people are happy to hear positive voices siding with them; it doesn’t make it or them right but there is a degree of comfort there regardless of the inherent dangers of factually incorrect advice.
Commercial law is not actionable on flesh and blood men. A corporation can only sue a corporation because we are all equal in the eyes of the law so “YOUR NAME” when capitalised is a corporation and legal fiction. They need your consent to bring you before a commercial court which operate under Admiralty law if you refuse consent any judgment of the court is not actionable on you the human. Common law always take precedence in a conflict of law.
Rubbish.
Absolute rubbish, and dangerous nonsense too.
So why did the ‘sheriff’s agent’ walk away?
Because he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on. He knew it and the Guards knew it.
The ‘dangerous nonsense’ is the fiction that banksters have the law on their side.
He walked away because he was standing there with two guards in front of a dozen protesters and discretion appeared to be the better part of valour.
They’ll be back.
Every single thing.you have written is completely wrong and like all freemen you happily encourage others to believe it works, despite the fact not one person has ever been successful at this nonsense charade. Admiralty law ? Seriously?
This guy walked away from his mortgage.
http://www.blankofireland.com/
No he didn’t.
That man is a danger – he shouldn’t be allowed to promote such complete lies about how the law works. He’s a dangerous lunatic.
I watched the whole video. @ joe ref you comments the dub gent made “save for the law” – the entire legal contest rests on the legality of the court registrar and the sheriff being one and the same. How can an order be signed by the same person that will gain financially from enforcing it? Ie the sheriff. The sheriff for those lucky enough not to know charges a fixed fee for collecting on legal orders. Doesn’t collect – doesn’t get paid. Why has this being going on for so long and the sheriff operating with success – well for a start this double jobbing is only relevant in some counties and in many cases the owner consents to repossession. Simple. If you consent they will repossess.
The boys with the flags at the end cheering away etc do the owners of this little project no favours. Why were they there? The Sheriff said he brought the Guards for protection.. and 15 lads in tracksuits started laughing..hhmm touch of the Sopranos about the ‘sure we wont touch you…’ comment..
Its Mountrath, thats what counts as a bit o craic.
I am shocked that so many comments are blaming the house owner for his problems. He took a small risk for a home, which everyone needs. All the while, the Irish Goverment is paying back 100% to bondholders who took high risks – not for their homes – but for profit. Wake up!!! You are either suckers or smug banksters!
You said it…… time to get educated
Word.
And because of this no one should pay back any money they owe?
Got the builders in to build my 10 bedroom house over a year ago. Since then the government has paid bondholders. I dont like this therefore I’m not going to pay the builders for the work they did or the bank for the money I borrowed to pay the builders.
Is that your line of reasoning?
I’m none the wiser on whether the guy had a case or not or who was liable and who wasnt zzzzz….but what gets me is all these organisations against the national debt , charges , banks etc carry on like a gang let out of Semple Stadium in 1993…cheering and high fiving while filming shite on their mobiles…cant be demanding respect or answers with nonsense carry on like that…all the morons outside the central bank…go way to fu*k.
I think it’s fair to say everyone can agree that the home owner has an obligation to pay back the money that was borrowed from the back to secure the house. But the man in the green jumper raised two very important issues which need to be addressed.
1. The registrar and the sheriff are one person, the registrar signs the order for the sheriff to enforce. The sheriff profits from each of order that is enforced. This is a conflict of interest.
2. The current manner, in which the deputy sheriff tries to repossess the home, appears to be in violation of the Irish constitution.
I believe that the current system of home repossessions must be amended, and a system put in place that is both constitutional, and lawful.
That man in the green is spouting absolute nonsense apart from the registrar/sheriff conflation issue, which is the only serious issue he raised.
LANDWAR! LANDWAR! LANDWARRRRRR!!!
I only came accross this last night and it made for fascinating viewing. Lets analyse it rationally and calmly from a legal point of view.
Failure to pay a debt is not a criminal offence. In mortgage cases, this is a civil matter. It is an argument between 2 sides about whether a contract has been broken. The law in this area has nothing to do with what is morally right or just. As this is the case, there is no need to go into that issue. It is irrelevant.
You are absolutely 100% correct; nobody has the right to enter your land/property except for certain clearly defined purposes (such as the garda in CRIMINAL matters, tv licence inspectors, environmental health etc). If somebody other than those individuals ask to enter your land/property you are quite within your rights to say no and request them to leave.
You are correct to say that the constitution offers protection for this matter also. This whole area needs to be challenged.
The sheriff has no legal right to enter on to your property.
As no criminal offence has been committed by the property owner, the gardai have no right to enter your land. They can ask and you are perfectly entitled to say no. Furthermore, it could also be argued if they do enter your land without your permission, (gardai or sheriff) they have committed the tort of trespass, for which they can be held liable for in the courts.
The separation of powers issue between the sheriff/registrar is another clear-cut case of a severe problem which has been allowed to quietly fester for years, simply because the main victims of the process were powerless individuals who hadn’t got the money to bring this to court.
(I would also suspect that part of the reason for the relatively low number of reposessions is because the banks/courts know that there are major problems with the law here. The banks & government then spin this to give the appearance that they are acting fairly.)
Once again, the main reason why they could get away with it for so long was because usually individuals who are in such a situation have little or no means to enforce their legal rights. It is too expensive to go to court.
The law is selectively interpreted by the registrar/sheriff and because people have usually been traumatised or shocked by the situation they find themselves in, they feel intimidated by a delegation with the gardai in tow turning up on their doorsteps. They feel that they have two choices; either go along with it or else they do something silly which then transforms the issue into a criminal matter.
I would also question the practice of the gardai being present in such cases. Although I am sure that sheriffs have been attacked in the past, the mere presence of the gardai serves to further intimidate the individual homeowner. The gardai have no authority to intervene unless a crime is committed during the process of the sheriff trying to enter your land (such as punching him). That’s it. If the guards do anything else they are probably acting unlawfully.
The gardai, if they are to retain the consent and respect of the community in which they operate should be very careful not to allow themselves to be drawn into these matters. The gardai need to actively demonstrate that they are impartial and not take one side or the other of the argument.
Once again, no crime has been committed through a failure to pay any debts. The gardai should not intervene unless a criminal offence is committed.
The lesson is; keep calm, don’t be intimidated, have witnesses who stay cool, video everything (the guards have no power to stop you), expain your points clearly, consistently and repeat them over and over again (don’t swear). The sheriff may attempt to bamboozle you with documents and paperwork but don’t get drawn into an argument in which he sets the rules.
The whole situation is basically a con trick based on intimidation and an illusion of legality. The simple fact is that the sheriff cannot enter your property unless you permit him to do so.
That’s it.
Trevor, why do you assume that the inviolability of the dwelling is an absolute right except in relation to criminal matters? You emphasised “criminal” a number of times and it is not the case. Article 40.5 clearly limits the right “save in accordance with law”. This includes civil law, such as entering a premises to execute a warrant for repossession. Your fundamental assumption is false and misleading.
This is an outstanding peace of work and well done to all this is what our TDs should be doing . Again well done yours faithfully Odran OBrien