TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Column: Ignore the conspiracy theories – the household charge must be paid

There is an increasing amount of gibberish masquerading as legal fact about things like the household charge, writes Fergal Crehan. It’s dangerous and it needs to end.

Fergal Crehan

IN THE PAST few months, an email has been circulating, purporting to contain legal advice regarding the Household Charge from McCann Fitzgerald, one of Ireland’s leading law firms. The same text has more recently been circulated in leaflets pushed through doors around the country. The “advice” is to the effect that nobody has to pay the Household Charge, because

This household charge is a Statute, otherwise known as an Act of Government and only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it… a statutory instrument is a contract. If you register for this “charge” you are consenting to this statute i.e. signing the contract.

For anyone wondering why this seemingly important legal information isn’t more widely known, the answer is clear: it’s a conspiracy, man.

The courts know this and the last thing they will do is tell you. In fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity they can. On the other hand, if you tell them, they will accept it because they know it is actually true

Anyone with a bit of legal knowledge will immediately understand that this is gibberish. This is why McCann Fitzgerald this week issued a statement denying any connection with the email and leaflet.

Similar pseudo-legal language was heard this week when a video of an attempted eviction in Co. Laois did the rounds. An assistant sheriff arrived at a house near Mountrath to execute an order for repossession obtained by Ulster Bank in the High Court after the owner of the house failed to make mortgage repayments. The deputy sheriff was met by a number of activists, who ultimately saw him off. The most vocal of the activists subjected him to a lecture in law which would sound suspect to the ears of any first year law student, let alone a practicing lawyer. The important thing to note from the video is that the deputy sheriff left in frustration, not because he was legally outfoxed. The court order stands, the sheriff will be back, the house will be repossessed.

This kind of thing is becoming increasingly common. People are turning up in court and insisting that laws don’t apply to them. Posters, newspapers and flyers propounding this idea are becoming more and more common around our cities and towns. The internet, of course, is riddled with the stuff. Worse, because media outlets don’t feel qualified to make judgement calls on the validity of legal “arguments”, it is often reported uncritically.

All of this is evidence of the increasing prominence of a fringe conspiracy theory known as the “Freeman On The Land”. This theory insists that only the common law applies to individuals, but that laws made by the governments or parliaments are only invitations to contract. If you don’t contract with the State, the acts of the Oireachtas don’t apply to you, and you are a “Freeman on The Land”. This is not a political position – freemen aren’t saying this is what the law ought to be, they’re saying this is what the law actually is. The Man won’t tell you about it, but if you confront Him with the truth, He will be forced to admit that the game’s up. Why a vast international conspiracy would suddenly capitulate upon hearing these magic words has never been explained. Also, it has never happened.

The Freeman movement developed fairly recently, and seems to have originated with the publication in 2005 of a book entitled (deep breath) “How I clobbered every bureaucratic cash-confiscatory agency known to man … a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are”.  This book cites David Icke as a source, though even Mr. Icke’s followers think the Freemen are a bit wacky.

Unlike most conspiracy theories, which are based on wilful misinterpretations of actual facts, much of the Freeman theory is entirely made up. Take the information card below.

Freeman

Quite simply, none of it is true. The government doesn’t trade for profit, income tax is not voluntary, birth certificates are not traded on the bond market.

Returning to the Household Charge, the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 applies to everyone, as do all acts of the Oireachtas. It says who has to pay the charge. It provides that non-payment is an offence, punishable by a fine. It allows local authorities to prosecute non-payers. It also provides that unpaid charges are a charge on the property, meaning you’ll have to discharge the arrears in order to sell the house. If people get away with not paying, it will be because it was too much trouble to prosecute them all, not because of a magic loophole.

We don’t need to enter any contract to be subject to laws. The Social Contract doesn’t exist, it is a metaphor. You might as well ask to see the captain of the Ship of State, or demand a swatch of the Fabric of Society. But then Freemen are oddly literal-minded, as Mr. Bobby Sludds displayed recently.

Mr. Sludds, or “Bobby of the Family Sludds”, as he prefers (this is another Freeman quirk. They don’t accept the names The Man gives them) was charged in Wexford District Court with the latest in an impressive string of traffic offences. He demanded to see the judge’s oath, though an oath is a form of words, not a physical object. He went on to deny there was any such person as “Boddy Sludds” and shortly thereafter found himself in Cloverhill prison. It took an application to the High Court (this time playing by the rules) and an admission as to his identity before he walked free. He was later convicted of all charges. The State may be a fictional entity, but it owns the prisons, and they are all too real.

So what is a law and what makes it real? There are entire fields of jurisprudence and philosophy that attempt to answer this, but in practice, a law is whatever the State says it is. There is literally not one single instance, worldwide, of Freeman arguments ever succeeding before a court, and that surely is the only test. Inventing your own law is a bit like inventing your own language – there’s not much point unless you can persuade everyone else to join in.

The Freeman theory is the legal equivalent of quack medicine. It’s often hilarious, but it can be dangerous. There are a lot of frightened and vulnerable people out there, and as with quack medicine, the attraction of a simple solution is great. Given the current public mood, anything that seems to stick it to The Man has an appeal.

I’m not happy with endless government charges or with banks repossessing houses, anymore than anyone else is, but if people put trust in this guff, some of them will find themselves in jail. There are Free Legal Advice Centres all around the country, staffed by lawyers who, contrary to cliché, offer their services free of charge. Anyone considering following the advice the Freemen might consider taking a trip to their nearest law centre first.

Fergal Crehan is a barrister

Read next:

Comments (210 Comments)

  • my unfinished and abandoned housing estate should be exempt form the charge but it was “accidently” put into the wrong category but they government refuse to correct the error – there seems to be no appeal system – how is this fair? I have to live with an open sewer at the end of my street and a road that looks like it was bombed.

    Reply
    • How can anyone give a thumbs down to this, just shows there’s a bunch of Endas ejits trawling tru these type of sites trying to pretend they’ve got some friends left.

      Reply
    • Aydo 03/03/12 #

      Martin theres some amount of trolls and genuine jerks in this site. You just have to ignore the thumbs and stick to the comments.

      Reply
    • The list that is made is a statutory document and can’t be changed. Have you contacted the council and confirmed it was an accident? If you can get them to admit this you should be able to pressure them for a refund.

      Reply
    • boy have i tried! They keep referring me to the dept of enviroment who refer me back to the council. They send me massive long winded emails full of information of no relevance but never actually answer my question on how to get the list changed. The movie “Brasil” springs to mind!

      Reply
  • This shit has been driving me mad. The mental lack of understanding of what things like mortgages or laws are is infuriating and people are being fooled.

    Reply
  • Did you know that at the end of March the government is going to take the first born from each of the 92% of houses that didn’t pay the charge?

    All there seems to be on both sides of this argument is scare mongering. What we really need to know is what can the government do if 90% of houses just don’t pay up?

    Reply
    • What I really want to know is what would they do if we all walked through Kildare Street, really slowly and quietly? If we could all get the Guy Fawkes masks or Scream masks that would be very good indeed. What’s the point of being a good citizen when ya just get beat down for it?

      Reply
  • Has anyone received an invoice, bill or notice regarding this charge? I’d like to know what form it comes in, if no-one has received anything……

    Reply
  • Think I’ll take my chances. We can’t all be jailed

    Reply
  • Cork 03/03/12 #

    What annoys me is that genuine objectors to household charges etc have their cause hijacked but the usual nutters and s**t stirrers – and no decent person wants to be seen to be on the same side as these!

    Reply
  • I worry for Ireland when so many of it’s people fall for, believe and spread this nonsense!

    Reply
  • Haha, yes, not like a crazy person at all.

    Reply
    • I am not a PERSON. I am a man.

      Reply
    • better ireland,
      please re read the first qoute you posted above
      “c) Person. The word “person” shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as importing a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons as well as an individual;”

      if you read it (maybe even just the last 5 words) you will see that your own information identifies you as a “person”

      all this legal / lawfull mumbo jumbo and deliberate confusion of the 2 entirely seperate definitions of “common law” do not help the situation.
      the fact is the household charge is an unjust imposition and is to be resisted and defeated by CIVIL-DISOBEDIENCE. not by self deception. It is a charge that the governement seeks to force on us, we need to force them to abandon it, it has been done before and can be done again.

      Reply
  • It annoys the hell out of me the way people keep refering to this charge as only 100 euro a blind man in a coma can see this is only the starter to a main course of at least 6/700 euro.That is why there are protests,not for the sake of a 100 euro.

    Reply
  • Thanks for the advice. I wasn’t going to pay the household charge and now I’m definitely not going to pay it.

    Reply
    • Happily for you the government has decided not to jail non payers. They will merely deduct the tax, interest, penalties and finesfrom your benefits or wages. If they can’t do that then they will jail you. And quite rightly so.

      Reply
    • @ Aye Peter, but if you don’t register the government has no way of knowing who owns the house and therefore can’t deduct from your wages or send you to jail without first committing a criminal offence if its own.

      Reply
    • Indeed Brian, however I would expect them to start with the Land Registry, the voters roll , income tax returns and the census forms .

      Reply
    • Exactly Peter. That is probably how they’ll do it alright. But that is a breach of data protection so I really would be unsure how they would be able to get a conviction in court based on illegally obtained information. I’ve read about paedophiles and murderers getting off Scot-free as a result of similar breaches or even simply because a warrant may be a few hours out of date.

      Reply
    • Aydo 03/03/12 #

      Peter Carroll strikes me as a troll

      Reply
    • They can’t use the census. That is protected by data protection

      Reply
    • Brian…data protection?
      I could see how getting information from the ESB or the telephone companies could break data protection, but to get information from Land Registries, and tax returns (especially if someone is claiming mortgage relief on the interest for the mortgage on the house to be charged) can hardly be a breaking of any data protection. If someone has told the state that they own a house already – either when they were buying the house or when they were paying tax (e.g. stamp duty) or when they were getting a benefit from the state because they own a house – then the state already has the information. People should not be fooled. If someone bought a house they have inevitably paid a tax on it or registered it in some form already and that information is not data that is protected from the government when they want to apply a new tax/charge.
      The only thing that will protect people (who do not comply with the property charge) from immediate prosecution will be a shear volume of people that do not comply. However, since the charge and the interest will be applied to the house, all interest, charges and penalties will eventually have to be paid if the owner ever want to sell their house or change the ownership of the house.

      Reply
    • Actually Robert, that would still amount to a breach of data protection. The various departments of government are not allowed to share information between each other on personal details under the rules of the 1988 Data Protection Act. It’s the reason members of an office in Social Welfare can not share personal details on clients with other staff in the same office. This is indeed a major problem and one of the reasons why fraud is commonplace (e.g. Revenue can not share information with Social Welfare and vice versa). The land registry is held in the hands of a state quango (similar to the HSE and as independent from Dáil inquiry as the ESB, RTÉ, etc.) known as the Property Registration Authority, whereas the household charge is under the auspices of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Similarly, tax returns are under the Department of Revenue. The simple matter is no one has declared to the state, including those who have already signed up to the household charge, that they own their own house. They have simply told a particular quango/department/semi-state/independent organisation, but not the state itself. Even using Revenue’s information, that would mean the someone from a completely separate Department would be able to access my own personal information without consent, even though I don’t own a property.

      Personally, I don’t own a property, so it’s of little concern to me. What is a major concern to me is the handing over of every single bit of personal information to a select group of people who have proven themselves as careful as a donkey on speed in a china shop.

      Reply
    • Firstly the Data Protection Act can be altered at the stroke of a pen – it is not a constitutional matter, secondly Information can be moved between departments for lawful purposes, Witness the recent exchange between The Dept of Social Protection and the Revenue in respect of Social Welfare pensions. I am aware that the content of the census is confidential and, for obvious reaons, will not be breached, the listing is not.

      Apart from all that, how do you think an post tracks down non TV license payers? And does any one seroiusly think that the government will be less diligent in colecting this tax than they are in collecting the TV licence?

      Reply
    • A donkey on speed in a china shop is definitely a much wilder and funnier image than a bull in a China shop :)
      Putting that aside, if what you say is true and if the data in different limbs of government cannot be exchanged (even when government would like to) then how come Social Welfare are able to exchange information with Revenue (since Joan Burton became a Minister)? As far as I know, at least in the case of Revenue, all the government have to do is have a minister sign a piece of paper saying that Revenue will share a specific aspect of the information they hold with a different branch/quango of government.

      Reply
    • The sharing of information aspect is all pretty well covered in the Act. They can easily find out who hasn’t paid without breach of Data Protection.

      Reply
    • Peter Carroll is right – the government don’t need you to sign a form to know what you own – that is already public record, it’s in the bleeding title deeds, which are, for the most part, computerised. It’s not a data protection issue – it would be the exact same as if you defaulted on paying taxes etc….

      Reply
  • Just to clear things up. This advise is coming from the ‘freemen’ group. The legal advise the Don’t Register – Don’t pay camapign is from fully trained and practicing solicitors who will act for people if it ever gets to the courts.

    To confirm the freemen have no Involvement whatsoever with the national Anti Household Tax campaign. Their views are extreme wheras the members of the campaign are mostly just regular people who want to make a peaceful stand, our message is straightforward and simple don,t register don,t pay.

    .

    Reply
  • There are really two distinct strands to this Freeman gibber in Ireland.

    Firstly, there are the relics of the Republican mysticism which hold that the state we all live in and vote for is illegitimate because they’re not in charge.

    By denying the State’s legitimacy- and, you know, the legitimacy of democracy- they hope to justify illegality by denying the law.

    The other strand are basically All-Right-Jacks who want to deny that laws like paying back money you borrowed and spent, or driving offences should apply to them.

    It’s basically a coalition of dickishness.

    Reply
  • Maybe someone has been printing thousands/millions of this crap propaganda from Leinster House and posting it through letterboxes ……. Hmmmmmmm Mister Watson. Who could this be ?

    Reply
  • The author misses the point completely. People aren’t paying the household charge because of the advice of some space cadet. People aren’t paying the household charge because it is disgraceful and unfair, and in many peoples eyes it was completely illegal for the government to place a yearly charge on them for owning a property.

    Reply
    • Aydo 03/03/12 #

      Here here Val!

      Reply
    • Point taken, but curiously… how is it “illegal for the government to place a yearly charge on them for owning a property”.

      I’m sure the citizens of the vast majority of countries with property taxes will be on tenterhooks to find out!

      Reply
    • Legal or illegal, i couldn’t give a rats,
      I ain’t payin!

      Reply
    • well said Val – it’s not a case of “not paying” – WE are already paying for every damn thing that goes on in this country – the load has to be more fairly distributed – I overhear many conversation in passing, where people are just so angry as the injustice of this. It’s not a case of “can’t pay-won’t pay” for everyone. It’s a case of “just won’t pay regardless” for any more of this madness. And if people choose to use the tax as a protest then all the better. Legality or otherwise , most of us live honest decent lives for ourselves and our families and by extension, our communities and we’re fed up of being demonised as per this article.

      Reply
    • It is illegal because the vast majority of the citizens of our nation disagree with it! Income tax is legal because, whether or not most of us like it, we recognise it is a necessity, otherwise we wouldn’t have roads to drive on, schools to send our children too, hospitals to go too when we’re sick, or even a way of making sure the disabled or unemployed from starving to death or being forced to live homeless. This is a tax that has been introduced for one simple reason, and that is so the government can take money from the majority of this country and hand it too a tiny minority (who don’t need it I might add).

      Government, and people, need to wake up and realise something about democracy. Governments are there to represent the people. Many died as humanity evolved and threw out the autocratic systems of old to allow people to choose who they wanted to represent them. But many government nowadays have their people living in fear. It is not up to a government to decide what should be legal and then impose that on their people regardless of what the people think. If the people think they are being treated unfairly, and in this case they are very justified in feeling that way, they have every right to stand up to their elected representatives and let them know that WITHOUT fear of reprisals. Your argument is not simply misguided, but your rhetoric is naive and, most importantly, dangerous. It implies the power of government over the people and that people should be subservient to them without question. To paraphrase the old saying, government should be afraid of their people, not the other way around.

      Reply
    • Just as a side note too, I never said it was illegal, I said many people view it as illegal. There’s and important difference there.

      Reply
    • So, OO’N, you’d be thinking then that we ought to follow what “the vast majority of countries” do in regards to every tax, law, statue, or governmental undertaking or responsibility? Hmm… We could then do away with voting, do away with democracy, do away with the Constitution of Eire, do away with any notion that ‘the people can decide.’? Is that your thinking, Oisin? It sure seems like the direct and only implication of what you wrote on 3/3/12…..

      Reply
  • Still won’t be paying!!! Now that’s a fact

    Reply
  • Cutting and pasting loads of text into multiple comments doesn’t make you look like a crazy person at all.

    Reply
  • The government last month needlessly paid unsecured bondholders the equivalent of something like 8 times the total take if EVERYBODY paid the household charge this year. The end of this month it will be the sum equivalent to 20 times the total take. Thats how we know it will skyrocket from next year, its the only way they ca continue to repay bankers gambling debts. Can’t pay, won’t pay. Stop the madness before its too late…

    Reply
  • Can’t pay, won’t pay. Wouldn’t pay it even if I could.

    Reply
  • Here’s something that’s a fact. Neighbour calls local TD to see if he is required to pay. He is told he has to. He says he lives on an unfinished estate – which should have made him exempt.
    He’s told that a survey was done and he has to pay. He asks for copy of survey 10 days ago. Silence. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

    Instead of the likes of Phil Hogan and Leo Varadkar going around scaring the wits and trumping up fear in ordinary people with their ‘warnings’ bile on behalf of our new paymasters, why don’t they act like proper servants of state and work to solve these problems and answer their own damn call of ‘We’re all in it together.’

    Law should be respected – but pushing fear in a democratic society for stealth taxes that do nothing but fill the empty bank vaults of Anglo and the deep pockets of unsecured bondholders while killing the economy and governing over an emigration and unemployment catastrophe.
    Real men?

    National disgrace!

    Reply
  • Excellent article. But maybe you could change the headline as it makes the author sound like an explicit supporter of the charge. The article itself does not suggest this, rather it puts people straight on the consequences of not paying.

    Reply
  • I’m glad you dealt with each of the points I raised there and succinctly showed how I was wrong without reducing yourself to an ad hominem conspiracy theory based argument. Well played.

    Reply
  • Apparently the company contracted to print off info leaflets for the public regarding the payment to be distributed to householders has itself gone into liquidation. IMO highlighters the I’ll thought out I’ll conceived way that this tax has been approached by the gov. Troika simply said jump and Enda asked how high – and these are the results.

    Reply
  • Question

    When it is finally proven that the Irish people were illegally burdened with €100′s of Billions of ponzi, false, debts.

    And It is no longer necessary for the Irish people to pay back the corrupt bankers.

    Will the Irish Government then abolish these penal taxes?

    Reply
  • Excellent article

    Reply
  • Whatever about paying or not I certainly would never give over my CC information on that dodgy looking website. There is definitely something else going on, given the fact that there seems to be no other way to pay this charge and no information has been sent out.

    Reply
    • You can download a form from the website (I think… there certainly is a form because I filled it out) or probably from a post office. The choice is there to pay lump sum by card or cheque as well as a quarterly direct debit.

      Reply
    • You do not have to Marko,

      How can I pay the Household Charge?

      Online – http://www.householdcharge.ie – by credit card/debit card or by Direct Debit. Instalment option is only available by Direct Debit until the 1st March 2012.

      By Post: Registration forms are available online; from City/County Councils; Libraries; Citizen Information Centres or Lo Call 1890 357357.

      Payment can be made by cheque/postal order/bank draft made payable to “Household Charge”. Send form with payment to: Household Charge, P.O Box12168, Dublin 1.

      NOTE: Direct Debit mandates submitted by post must be received by 1st March 2012

      Local Authority: In your City/County Council offices before 31st March (no administration fee applies).

      Reply
  • I wonder how much “success” with Freemanism is down simply to organisations taking a cost/benefit judgement of burning money to fight crazy or not spending enough money to smoke out bullshit, or Gardaí making a reasoned assessment that an arrest might wind up with more paperwork than usual for a minor offence and take them away from actually doing police work while they deal with erratic nonsense that sounds plausible enough they need to double check to make sure they don’t blow an arrest and prosecution on a technicality and waste taxpayers money.

    I’m fairly certain that Fergal could cite examples of where he or his fellow practitioners has used the actual law successfully on behalf of clients (that body of historical case law record is what is the basis of Common Law).

    I have not actually seen any examples of a judge saying to a Freeman defendant “Oh, yeah, you have a point there, this thing is a load of codswollop, case dismissed”. Where that has happened please post the case citation of the law report where it was published or the case reference from the Courts Service so the claim can be verified. Note that “I heard about X who did Y in Case Z” is not evidence of success. Having your phone company decide not to chase you because you started to make it not cost effective to pursue the debt is not the same as your arguments being right. What I’d like is an actual case where an actual judge agreed with an actual Freeman argument.

    Other than that this is just legal homeopathy and if you dilute actual law in enough nonsense it will retain the vague memory of the law and will forget that it is just nonsense, even though it has the logical follow through of a bag of week old spaghetti.

    Reply
  • Anyone who reads that leaflet and actually believes any of it deserves what they get…

    Reply
  • Actually Better Ireland you didn’t give me a case number or name but that’s for 2 reasons I’d imagine.

    First, you couldn’t possibly have won on a Freeman argument as it is demonstrably nonsense and secondly because District Court cases don’t have official reports (you mentioned Judge Miriam Malone, President of the District Court so I assumed it was in that Court) there couldn’t be a record which, conveniently, means you’ll just tell me you won and it was covered up or some such.

    Bobby Sludds was a Freeman who took his case to Court and tried to argue his Freeman case. It didn’t work. When he was placed in prison and took a Habeas Corpus application he retained the use of both Senior Counsel, Junior Counsel and a Solicitor (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0813/1224302378875.html) Judge Anderson was, according to the High Court, wrong to remand Sludds in custody. Sludds availed himself of proper legal counsel as was his right. He tried his Freeman nonsense again by trying to sign a peace bond “all rights reserved” but was told to either sign it properly or go back to jail. Sludds signed it properly. This is all a matter of public record. Sludds is demonstrable proof, as if any were needed, that Freemanism simply does not work and that its priests and disciples are faced with jail they quickly throw off the mantle of their “ideology” and accept the simple truth that there is no conspiracy in our legal system and that statute law does apply to them.

    Reply
  • This lot are starting to sound like some of the anti federal nutters in the states. Wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve imported it from there. I seem to remember a police stand off with the “freemen” in Montana some time back. They had similar views on taxation. also google Wesley snipes and tax evasion, he believed something similar see how he got on with it.

    Reply
    • Calling people with an opposite view to your own “nutters” is a classic desperate attempt to discredit leftist views without engaging them in argument. It’s an Irish past-time peddled by dishonest SME owners, selfish professionals and free market cheerleaders who can afford taxes and have no regard for social inclusion.

      Reply
    • Quoting Wesley Snipes films as if they are factual accounts is a bit dim.

      Reply
  • I’m not giving this government any more of my hard earned money until they stop wasting our tax money. I would have no problem paying any tax if I knew it was going to benefit the Irish people. We have far too many politicians in this country, who get paid far too much, our 168 td’s claimed €60 million in expenses last year, mostly unvouched, that’s on top of their huge salaries, and most of them do f-all, joining campaigns like this one for publicity and future votes. Our councils and civil servants haven’t “tightened their belts” and until they do I’ll not be parting with any more of my money and I hope they do bring me to court so I’ll get a chance to voice my opinion because I have plenty of examples of where money is continually been wasted.

    This article shows me that the government are totally missing the point of why most sain people won’t be paying these charges, I don’t know the law and I don’t care about it either because as far as I can it’s more or less made up as we go along and it’ll be a sad day when decent ordinary people standing up for themselves are victimised at a time when crime is escalating with drugs, prostitution, murders etc.

    Are these law advice centers not government funded?

    Reply
    • I am nothing to do with the government, and neither is FLAC, which is an independent agency staffed by by volunteers.

      Reply
    • I would also cut the wages and stop any bonuses to bank staff immediately, it is our tax money paying these people. Give the money to the schools and hospitals instead. People only learn from their mistakes if they are punished, if they aren’t they will continue to do it all again and the banks are getting away scot free, it’s the ordinary people who were least at fault who are paying for it the most. The people on big wages who were educated in relation to proerty and finances such as solicitors, accountants, bankers, politicians, property developers, councils etc are still the people who are getting rich in this country, laughing at us paying for their mistakes. I know ordinary people made mistakes but we were only going on the advice from the “experts”. My sister was offered a mortgage of 1.5 million during the boom but she laughted in their face, she only toke one for €500k. The bank was more than happy to cripple her with repayments for the rest of her life just so he could get his bonuses, it’s disgusting what happened and what is still happening in our country.

      Reply
    • How can you “cut the wages” of the people you mentioned when their pay is not controlled by the government? You suggest a nanny state where they tell everyone how much they can make in private transactions? wow.

      Reply
    • @oisin
      The only people i said to cut their wages was the bankers because if it wasn’t for our tax money these banks would be gone so I think we’ve every right to have a say in how much they get paid. What exactly do u mean by the “nanny state” comment? I never said anything about private transactions.

      Reply
    • You said “solicitors, accountants, bankers, politicians, property developers, councils etc” – I thought this was in relation to the pay cuts necessary? If not I apologise for taking you up incorrectly.

      Reply
  • I’m not not paying either.
    The Septic Tank one is the most ridiculous one yet.
    It feels like the EU are trying to Americanise us.

    Reply
  • People are a little deluded.. There will be a few people fine and a few people will be made examples of… I agree don’t register don’t pay… But not everyone is going to get off Scott free just because there are so many who won’t pay

    Reply
    • That’s right. And we all know who’ll be made an example of. It will probably be a family who ate caring for an elderly relative at home with only a single income or a one parent family. it certainly won’t be a banker or politician.

      Reply
  • No I’m not a barrister or a solicitor. Not that that would or should matter, and even if I claimed to be how would I prove that I am given you dispute the authority of the Bar Council etc. etc. etc. I do however work in the real world and understand how organisations often take cost/benefit decisions on things and how other factors other than the legalities of a situation can influence decisions people take.

    If you want to post the case reference here I’m sure Fergal or anyone else who would be minded to so so could look it up and see what exactly the outcome of the case was and see what arguments swayed the Court.

    Of course, your next comment will probably be to dispute the validity of my comments because I refer to not having seen a judge do something but I’m not a barrister or a solicitor. Well done if that’s the case.

    Reply
  • jimbo 04/03/12 #

    Ask my backside

    Reply
  • Well none Fergal – about time somebody correctly responded to this rubbish. Very entertaining as well as factual.

    Reply
  • Well this article thankfully is a tiny minority point of view. one hundred euro obviously is nothing to the author. bottom line is at present two million people won’t pay! and good for them.

    Reply
  • They can take their false letters. They can take their threats they can shove them up their arse as far as they go. I won’t pay.
    It’s not the the governments interest or any other party for that matter or unions to implement any change as it’s not in their own personal interest when the money’s and pensions and perks they get is wrong. If they took a proper pay cut no pensions till their 65 and give up those private jets which the house hold charge would just about cover for the year in running costs.
    I’ll have no prob paying more taxes.
    Think about it a 100 euro of each house the money it generates is loose change to what their paying each other in wages and perks.
    100 euro think more of a grand each year folks if you pay now their takin us for a ride every day all of them.

    Reply
  • time to leave the eurozone. it has made the rich richer and the poor poorer and suicidal.so effing what if we end up with potatoes and cabbage for breakfast, dinner and tea. its been an eventful 11 and a bit years, but nothing lasts forever. i would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

    Reply
  • No offence taken.

    Grand so. You’ll be publishing a list of cases where your arguments prevailed then. Excellent.
    Just bear in mind that to satisfy my evidence based test the case will need to have actually gone to court and an argument from the Freeman Big Boy Bumper Book of Law needs to have won the day.Also, no other legal arguments by an advocate from one of the recognised professions (Barrister or Solicitor) can have been put forward (the judge might easily have gone along with that instead). A freeman, representing themselves, winning. I’d really like to see the evidence of that case.

    Getting a company to back down because you are bogging their admin processes down in costly and time consuming nonsense so they take weigh up the cost of chasing you or dealing with the person who actually engages with the reality of things doesn’t count here as no judgement will have been passed so there is no recognition of the legality of your argument, just a recognition of the economic burden your approach to things places on companies (which ultimately winds its way onto other people’s bills or pension funds as they have to take the hit for debt writeoffs affecting the profitabilty of the company, just as taxpayers have basically wound up carrying the can for bank debt which was underwritten by the State).

    An actual case in an actual court with an actual win on actual Freeman logic and argument is what I’m looking for.

    Reply
  • I’m sorry if I offended any homeopaths or homeopathic remedy users with that last comment. At least Homeopathy might work via the placebo effect.

    Reply
  • tim 03/03/12 #

    People won’t be long getting sick of financing a government that attacks the weakest in society,people should vote no in the referendum as a protest to the property tax,they won’t like that.

    Reply
  • There is a lot of debate raised on this article. The one thing that it was missing was balance. There are examples ( many from around the world) of people ‘getting off’ (weather it is criminal or civil) over technicalities such as ‘the name’ or identity/ false or incorrect arrest (may be related to the ‘do you understand’ / stand under request from police after they read you a list of rights to replace the ones you had before being arrested ) any way there seems to be a lot of procedures that have to be in order for the legal/courts system to be effective and this fact may lend itself to some legitimacy of this ‘contract/acceptance to contract’ or simply going/not going along with the ‘system’ issue that is mentioned above. On the Dunne and Bradstreet website I remember seeing the revenue, dail eireann, and an garda siochana all listed on the site. Conspiracy theories aside there are certain facts such as the D&B website that raise questions and I don’t think anyone can answer them. If a legal person or someone from government comes out and says that this is all true then they will be classed as nutters by society as someone speaking contrary to ‘status quo’. Regardless what was said about the catholic church back in the day those ‘nutters’ who spoke out had to wait decades for society to look into the conspiracy theories and find that they were in fact true. Saying all that, I believe if this ‘freeman’ movement whether which is happening all over the world will be a positive catalyst for change. And like all change there is an inherent resistance. Labelling something as nonsense is not the way to tackle the increased demand by society for the truth. Answering the questions raised is.

    Reply
    • What questions raised? The freeman theory may as well be “If I can’t see you then you dont exist.” It has absolutely no legal basis and is totally hypocritical. They rely on the constitution when it suits them and ignore the parts that dont fit their theory. They don’t think they should pay tax but have no problem claiming welfare or driving on public roads. They claim that their mortgage isn’t real because there was no actual money provided by the bank yet none of them will return the stuff they bought with their “imaginary” money. They target the vulnerable and the plain stupid in order to garner support because nobody with an ounce of intelligence will pay them any heed. They are to law what scientology is to religion.

      Reply
  • Apart from the fact that some of your definitions are misleading or taken out of context you offer them as a justification of the Freeman position when they simply are not. For example your translation of Art 41.1.1 comes from the literal translation of the Irish form of the Constitution posited by Michael O’Cearuil. However you offer it as a suggestion that this somehow means that “Better of the Family Ireland” somehow is above all statute law. That is an utterly ridiculous proposition for a number of reasons, 3 of which are:

    1. Family rights are communal and do not vest in the individual.
    2. Art 41.1.1 doesn’t enumerate the rights of the family. It’s an aspirational article designed to stop the State from interfering with families and has actually come under heavy criticism for its interpretation as this has meant it is extremely difficult to intervene in any but the most severe cases of parental neglect.
    3. Nowhere does it state that by means of this Article shall a member of a family be entitled to remove himself from the application of any law laid down by the Oireachtas in accordance with Art. 15.2.1.

    Even your response is affirmative of what I had previously said. You have given your laughable Freeman position and surrounded it with legal terminology without connecting the two at all but somehow claim that this justifies your argument. It does nothing of the sort.

    Reply
  • Better Ireland is using a very common Freeman trick: they baffle you with masses of seemingly legalistic information and then tell you that all of it means that they are right when careful scrutiny and a little common sense would actually demonstrate the opposite.

    Reply
  • Ireland would need to watch out that this housing charge doesn’t evolve rather quickly into the Poll Tax as they had in Britain under that fascist bitch Mrs.T. We were told over there it was ‘ for the benefit of the people’ and a much fairer system than the old rates. It wasn’t my arse ofcourse as the poorer, lower sectors of society were hammered and suddenly had to find 750 quid upwards for each person of the household over 18. Thankfully, many Brits fought back and refused to pay. This led to the famous Trafalgar Square riots ofcourse, but she also put lots of people in jail for it; including Pensioners. It was eventually scrapped but I’d say beware of any such or similar proposals by the Irish Government.

    Reply
  • It is important to acknowledge openly and fully that the Boycott Household Charges campaign is a campaign of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. That is to say, it is a conscious and shared act of disobedience to prevailing law with the purpose of highlighting the injustice of that law, and of mobilising and energising all of the democratic processes by which that law may be changed. People should understand that everyone who engages in civil disobedience DOES risk personal consequences of a legal nature. HOWEVER, it is our hope, as a campaign, that the government will find itself without the resources to criminalise over a million OTHERWISE law-abiding dissenting citizens, AND THAT the campaign will be able to continue raising resources and funds for those few who the government will be in a position to pursue as an example with which to frighten others, so that this campaign may ultimately gain the success of massive numbers, communal solidarity, and the overwhelming justice of our case.

    Reply
  • This should have been means tested… People who genuinely can’t pay shouldn’t have to! If you can afford a luxury lifestyle then you should pay double!

    Reply
  • There is one way where ultimately everyone (or their children) will be caught; the house cannot be sold unless the property tax has been paid.

    Reply
  • When I moved to Ireland twelve years ago, I couldn’t believe how little tax Irish citizens paid on anything compared to anywhere else I’d lived. Low VAT, no property charges, no water rates, and income tax wasn’t notably higher than where I’d come from. Now that we’re finally catching up, which we should have done years ago IMHO, it’s kind of depressing to hear so many people whining about it. If you own a house and can’t afford to pay €100 a year on top of what you already pay, then the reality is you probably just can’t afford to own a house — your mortgage will probably go up by at least that much soon enough anyway, and then what are you going to do?

    Reply
    • What were the high street prices back then,this low vat rate you speak of was still 20%.Some taxes were low but there was plenty of them.Have you heard of VRT for eg.

      Reply
    • Neil 03/03/12 #

      Calum, what countries are you comparing Ireland too when you say out tax base is lower? Of we take Germany, France or Sweden as an example taxes are much higher there however the average wage is also much higher than Ireland therefore comparing tax rates without the context of salary rates is misleading.

      Reply
    • @Calum, We have been told repeatedly by politicians that the €100 fee is just for registration, actual property tax will follow by 2014 which will be somewhere in the region of €2000 annually, or so a few have said. The vast majority of people simply don’t have this, we are being taxed every possible way they can find to bleed us.
      Let those making €50k plus a year pay if they so wish but too many families are in dire straights as is and go from month to month trying to keep afloat, paying a mortgage that’s probably dropped €70,000 in value and has no means of getting out from under it will find it all to hard to find that two grand when they cant afford health insurance or even struggle to keep up with the mortgage.

      Reply
    • @Calum, very well said. I’m Irish myself but have lived in several countries and find as you do that taxes here, especially considering the socialist element of governance, are comparable if not lower. Every country has silly little taxes that admittedly add up, on these Ireland is pretty fair in my estimation. My brother owns a house in the US and pays 3500-4000 USD a year in property tax. He lives in a work a day neighbourhood in a work a day town, certainly not Beverly hills or the like.

      Reply
    • @Neil, Ireland has the second highest minimum wage, second highest average disposable wage and the second highest gross wage in the EU. Luxemburg s the highest in all three categories.. (OECD 2010)

      Reply
    • Peter,
      do u currently work for the minimum wage?

      Reply
    • Neil 03/03/12 #

      @Peter, that may be so however the minimum wage is not indicative of national average salary. A recent study I saw in 2011 saw Ireland ranked 9th in the EU in terms of average salary and 22nd on a global scale.

      Reply
    • Please give a link to the study Neil…

      Reply
  • Bottom line it is unfair for all and should be fought.

    Playing devils advocate here. The author of this article is in the legal business and therefore in writing this he is defending his industry – and doing it well at that.

    If there was a 1% chance that the freeman movement was correct, it would have to be stamped out to maintain order in the system.

    Usual things apply here aka don’t believe what others tell you and do your own homework.

    As a member of society it is your duty act against laws which are unjust. After all those who legislate are representing you and if they ignore you they’re not doing the job.

    Reply
    • Let me put this to you in it’s most basic and obvious logical way. If the logic of Freeman on the Land is, in fact, correct – that is, an “Act of Government [which] only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it… a statutory instrument is a contract.” Then you are free to legally do the following:

      Rape a woman – Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html#sec2)

      Have sexual intercourse or bugger a child under 15 – Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006(http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2006/a1506.pdf)

      Commit incest – Punishment of Incest Act, 1908 & Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Act, 1995 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0012/index.html)

      Conduct child trafficking and/or pornography – Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0022/index.html)

      But that’s right. YOU didn’t consent to these laws being forced upon your “free man”, so you don’t have to abide by these government tricks! I’m not trying to be insensitive or shocking… but one must think about these things with logic and follow them to their full conclusions.

      Reply
    • Oisin, if John Hayes here is a Freeman, he would not be doing any of the things you’ve laid out below. The Freeman movement or whatever they’re called are solely responsible for their own actions and live under a ”do onto them as you would have them do onto you” code. So wilfully harming/killing another person or destroying/damaging someone’s property would not be operating as a Freeman under the Freeman ethic. I think their point is that they can function in society without all the imposed rules and regulations that goes along with by following that code. Obviously there’s more to it than that but it’s not that there’s no laws for them its just excessive ruling is frowned upon by them. The idea is that the Brehon Laws and common Laws are sufficient.
      On the subject of the household charge…what is it actually for? Property tax, right, I get that, but the house has been paid for in full, mortgage has been paid, why are we be asked to pay €100 a year to use something that’s registered in the owners name? I just don’t get it. What services/goods am I paying for here? The house is mine why tax me to use it? If this is the logic then where does it stop!? Why would it be so mad for them to taxing walking, running, the act of eating, having children, not having children. I really feel like I’m missing something here. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

      Reply
  • Law of the land is Common Law, not once did this article highlight that fact.
    Propia persona..

    (c) Person. The word “person” shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as importing a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons as well as an individual;
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1937/en/act/pub/0038/sec0011.html.

    The following “ATTESTATION OATH” is sworn by all members of the Garda and we are informed by the Garda Press Office, the Garda Reserve.

    I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_

    I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.

    WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A MEMBER, I WILL TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE DISCHARGE ALL MY DUTIES ACCORDING TO LAW, AND

    I DO NOT BELONG TO, AND WILL NOT WHILE I REMAIN A MEMBER FORM, BELONG TO OR SUBSCRIBE TO , ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR SECRET SOCIETY WHATSOEVER”.

    2005 NO 20 GARDA SIOCHANA ACT – SOLEMN DECLARATION SECTION 16.

    Link : http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0020/sec0016.html#sec16

    5. 1° Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:

    “In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.”

    Reply
  • Just curious about the claims re:commercial activity. If the Government doesn’t trade for profit, then why is it listed on D&B as a Limited Company, and not a Company Limited by Guarantee as would be normal for non-profit activities? If it is a Limited Company who holds the shares and for whose benefit?

    Reply
  • “Inventing your own law is a bit like inventing your own language – there’s not much point unless you can persuade everyone else to join in.”

    This is the only piece of sense in this barristers article .

    The government can make whatever laws it wants , but if it doesn’t get everyone to agree with it , the law , no matter what the courts or a solicitor tells you , is dead letter .

    All reasonable practical laws get support of the people , and thereby civilised society thrives .
    Unreasonable , impractical unjust and unfair laws are un-enforceable ,
    Despite the legal opinion that the state can do as it likes . It cannot . It can only do what we, the citizens , let it do.

    Reply
  • What an interesting debate. My father always advised me to never argue with fools a onlookers would not be able to tell the difference.
    If you don’t pay the Household charge you owe a debt.
    That debt is then registered against your property.
    That registration is then in the public domain.
    Credit Agencies have routine systems for downloading such information.
    Potential Consequences;
    Credit Card not renewed!
    Overdraft ..personal not renewed!
    Car Loan application refused.
    No purchase permitted other than with cash.
    Etc etc etc.
    Now let’s see the Bar Stool lawyers coming at me over these facts ……….

    Reply
    • Not a lawyer but on the basis of what you say,so just for instance half the liable homes don’t pay 800k maybe.These people will be denied credit forever.Did you think you opinion out or is just keep scareing people till they do what you want.Sorry but your opinion is so stupid i can’t say anymore.

      Reply
    • I’ll probable never sell my property without losing money so I’m never going to sell it.
      I don’t want or need a credit card.
      I don’t want or need an overdraft.
      I don’t want or need a car loan.
      Etc, etc, etc?
      What else do you have to say?

      Reply
  • Anyone who believes that letter should consider what it means on a larger scale if you follow it. Child pornography law is statute and not common law. Your stance against statute law effectively legitimises child pornogrphy. Same goes for child neglect. There are many other crimes that are only covered by statute law and not common law. Perhaps you should consider the implications for supporting the ignoring of statute law.

    Reply
    • Given that the ‘freeman on the land’ principle would collapse society as we know it, if everyone took it up. If all the statutes and laws are based on consent then it is true that we give our consent to the government one way or another to enforce these laws that keep us from harm and take care of us when we need it. (that’s why we put them there in the 1st place). But this movement has not come about from people who are wealthy and profiting from their ‘freeman’ actions but from those who are on the brink and being ignored. Those who choose to fight and be heard rather than doing the unthinkable in desperation. Again I think change is coming, around the world, and it is a result of, in essence, the miss management of our assets, resources, taxes, freedoms & hard work by the governments we have put in place to take care of us. Remember not to long ago a group of brave men stood outside the GPO and were heckled by their fellow irish while reading out their proclamation of independence which along with the events of the day led to them giving up their lives for their efforts in making a change to the way things were always done. Each to their own is what I say and regardless of what money someone got or didn’t get in the end of the day the constitution was written by the people as a guide book for how the government can treat the people and if it says that you can’t be thrown out of your house no matter which way you read it there is something wrong if a bank who has been paid for the mortgage (by the people of ireland) can kick out an Irish family from the family home and sell it.

      Article 41
      1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

      2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

      Reply
    • @james – maybe I’m missing something but where in the constitution does it say you don’t have to pay your mortgage. And putting your clearly and factually comment about the mortgages being paid for already. Who do you think have paid for the backs – that’s right all of us – not the governing or the eu or the IMF but all of us – it didn’t come out of thin air. Do you think that we should pay off someone else’s mortgage when they don’t pay it???

      Reply
    • @Paul I am sorry I brought the banking system into it. I was not saying that mortgages don’t need to be paid I simply said that that doesn’t override the constitution. The Constitution lists out our rights. So its not likely to be mentioning the banks at all. They are well down the line of importance after our basic inalienable and imprescriptible rights. If you look at where money comes from you will find that ‘thin air’ is exactly where it comes from. Comments on the European Debt Crisis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5QwKEwo4Bc you can see that it clearly all came from ‘thin air’ as money is not biased on anything of value (gold etc) now a days.

      Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning “let it be done” or “it shall be [money]“, as such money is established by government decree. Where fiat money is used as currency, the term fiat currency is used.
      Fiat money originated in 11th century China,[1] and its use became widespread during the Yuan and Ming dynasties.[2] The Nixon Shock of 1971 ended the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. Since then all reserve currencies have been fiat currencies, including the dollar and the euro.[3]

      Reply
  • Ardo Ci 05/03/12 #

    Spoken or rather written like a true barrister! Sure you must be scared to death you’ll lose your vast income if the trend for barrack-room lawyers continues. The law continues to be an ass and that is the reason people are challenging it for themselves.

    Reply
  • Absolute propaganda piece from someone with a complete vested interest. Classic disinformation. While some of what the writer says is true, it also contains a large number of barefaced lies. A ridiculous article that unfortunately will be praised rather than ridiculed by most people as the majority remain unwilling or unable to educate and empower themselves since this invariably involves stepping completely outside a predisposed comfort zone. Until we truly question something we can never hope to understand it and are therefore in no position to mock those who do.
    A quote from Winston Churchill springs to mind, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

    Reply
  • Its interesting to read through this and note the references to phedophilia , child abuse etc and note the shock/horror element it try’s to introduce into the discussion, this in the same week that our government bans file sharing on sites for copyright infringments and then announces that they are looking at “possiably” stopping child porn,phedophilia and other graphic images being accessed at a later stage.
    The same government that has “Suspended” the peoples right to a referendum from the Constitution. Yes you read that correctly ! Our right to get signatures and call a referendum has been “Suspended” in our own interests, makes you wonder what part or the constituion is going next.
    I think this speaks volumes as to our government’s prioritys and stance which seems to be proctect the money men (though google and facebook are two of the highest employers here and growing as is cloud computing and we are the only country holding them liabal for content even the USA dropped the proverbial Hot Potato) pillage the middle and low income earners whilst a judge and at least 20 high profile people walk away from downloading child porn proving that these are the laws that need attention not kids listening to some music they will be bored with in a few weeks ffs.
    This government needs to grow a pair if balls and the bigger picture needs looking at.

    (A) Rothschilds major bond holders in irish banks (fact)

    (A 1) Rothschilds advisors to irish government on bailout (fact)

    (B) Goldman sachs major bond holders in irish banks (fact) both can be seen on AIB list

    (B 1)Goldman sachs advisors to irish government on bailout (fact) can be found on any amount of press release’s

    Now all you Leagle eagles out there can you honestly say this is not insider tradeing fraud etc?
    We are supposed to just hand over €100 for a household tax which will then be considered a legal document bearing our signature which will then become contract ! For which we will also be liabal to terms and conditions at a later stage via a stroke of a pen by some minister incorporating many more stealth taxes in the months/years to come.
    Or has anyone thought this might be a smoke screen for the Treaty we are about to vote on which gives the governing body freedom from judicial over their actions unless they conceed to appear? (A dictatorship) and which we have to provide €700,000,000 per year to fund provided upon demand and subject to increase at their discression.
    The household tax is a sprat thrown to catch a salmon. I for one will not be paying it and I would advise anyone else to be very careful , as the old saying go’s “Theres no sense going out with an umberella when your shoes are leaking !”

    Reply
  • I dunno seems a barrister would have a vested Interest in this, its what they dont’t tell you. Is it not true that when faced with a bankrupcy case a barrister will always plead not guilty for his client and by so doing cause’s controvercy and forces the court case whereas if the client was to plead guilty there would be no need for him and less repercussions. Also is it not true that commercial law is admirality law [law of the sea] but common law is the law of the land, and the gardai are only sworn to up hold common law. I need to know more but one thing I know I would’nt trust an article like this from a person with a vested Interest in the people not knowing their rights.

    Reply
    • You need to know more, that’s for sure. I don’t think what you said contains a single bit of factual information. Besides, barristers can only enter a plea based on what they are instructed to do. Their client must plead, not the barrister.

      In any event, what’s the purpose of trying to prolong (unnecessarily) a case to get money out of a bankrupt? The barrister surely won’t get paid for it.

      Reply
    • @Martin, you are talking absolute rubbish. Explain how a barrister has a vested interest here?

      Reply
    • Its a fact that the gardai swear an oath to uphold common law, its a fact that common law is the law of the land and commercial law is the law of the sea, a barrister is not reqiured to represent a defendant, if a client pleads guilty to owing his ceditors and accepts that he owes the debths, and therefore the barrister would lose bussiness if everyone pleaded guilty in a bankrupcy case’s. Where’ the complete rubbish in those points?

      Reply
    • Oisin, “you don’t think there’s a bit of factual information, “you go check I’ll wait here. Gardai do swear an oath to uphold only common law [law of the land] not commercial law. Common law is the law of the land and commercial law is the law of the sea. There’s a few facts for ye.

      Reply
    • And on a final point the client pleads based on the advice of his barrister, and who wouldn’t think pleading not guilty wasn’t in your best interest.

      Reply
    • Let’s deal with this nonsense in order, shall we Martin?

      1) The Gardaí swear a solemn declaration from section 16 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which states that they “will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Síochána with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartiality, upholding the Constitution and the laws and according equal respect to all people”. No mention of “common law” in there at all.

      2) Common law is simply a law of precedent, it is unequivocally not a “law of the land”.

      3) Commercial law is simply not “the law of the sea” (literal lol btw); commercial law simply describes law within the system of legislation and common law that we operate that deals with the sale and purchase of goods. It is Freeman tactics to describe it as otherwise based on the flawed, but historically accurate medieval legal system called ‘lex mercatoria’ – this law developed parallel to common law and governed trade. Simply, because medieval trade was all on the sea it made sense that it was, in a simplistic way, the “law of the sea”. This is gone now though… gone. Parts of it have been brought in to our laws of equity and commercial law, but these now operate as part of our common law system.

      4) A barrister is not required to represent a defendant… I… I just… *sigh* where to start? Ok, 3.1(a) of the Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland: “Barristers have a duty to uphold the interests of their client without regard to their own interests or any consequences to themselves or any other person (http://www.lawlibrary.ie/documents/memberdocs/CodeOfConduct25072011.pdf)
      Barristers work solely off of their instructions from their solicitors (who are duty bound as officers of the court to operate from their client’s instructions). A barrister could tell a client to plead guilty to something until they are blue in the face; if the client wants to plead not-guilty and proceed with a trial, that is their right to do so and the barrister will and must respect this right and proceed accordingly.

      5) If a client pleads guilty and accepts he owes debts the barrister loses business how exactly? Think about that for a second. If the person is bankrupt (and I suggest you pop over to wikipedia and look up the definition of bankruptcy post haste) and pleads not-guilty and (I’m taking some huge liberties with accuracy and reality here for the sake of argument on the level you have set) the trial runs and the person is found to be, in fact, bankrupt; how does this represent a financial victory for the barrister? They have just expended massive amount of time to represent a person that can now not pay them. In fact, the barrister technically makes more money per time expended on the bankrupt pleading guilty.

      To the voting bunch, not that I give half a eff what you think, it is very easy to click on that red button… but unless you have a factual reply to tell me why I’m wrong, you’re safe in knowing that downvoting secures your ignorance and idiocy. Proceed.

      Reply
    • I’m obsessed with the word “simple” today apparently. Too much meerkat comparison I guess!

      Reply
    • here here

      Reply
  • Very well put Calum,

    Reply
  • Article 41.1.1: “The State acknowledges that the family is the basic primary sub-group of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable and invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.”

    Reply
  • The problem I have with this article is that Mr Crehan doesn’t address the substance of what the circulated “advice” has to say. It’s all ad hominem stuff.

    Reply
  • courts are corrupt, you have the right to ask a judge what law he is administrationg, but they advoid the qs nd threatening you with contempt.
    Ignorance of law is no excuse?? ask what law..
    ask what language they are using as legalese is what they use. and is another type of legal english

    Reply
  • Under the terms of Article 6 of the Constitution, —> sovereignty is vested in the Irish people<— although the State is externally sovereign in terms of its standing in matters of international law. The State, Ireland, is answerable before the courts for wrongs committed against individuals for breach of their constitutional or legal rights. The Constitution may only be altered following a referendum, provision for which is made in Article 46

    The fundamental rights of the citizen are guaranteed in Articles 40 to 44 of the Constitution. Article 40 provides that all citizens are to be held equal before the law and obliges the State to vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. The term "personal rights", as interpreted by the courts, has led to the recognition and vindication of many rights not expressly provided for in the text of the Constitution. These 'unenumerated rights' include the right to bodily integrity, the right to marry and the right to earn a living, among others.

    .http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/0/D5F78352A387D74480257315005A419E?opendocument&l=en

    Reply
  • Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See legal. [Bold emphasis added]

    Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual

    “Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24.

    Reply
  • de jure – rightful, correct, true, adverb-According to rightful entitlement or claim; by right, adjective – Denoting something or someone that is rightfully such – he had been de jure king since his father’s death

    de facto – Factual but not necessarily ‘rightful’. adjective – Denoting someone or something that is such in fact – a de facto one-party system. adverb – In fact, whether by right or not – the island has been de facto divided into two countries [might be a 'fact' but not necessarily concordant with right, reason and justness]

    Reply
    • Now its Not a shit article. Fergal how can you just discard all this? Better ireland, contests Your biased article. You are obviously defending Your industry and might i add throwing weight to laws that allow our constitution to be overruled. The Free legal aid scam is obviously an attempt to have us All sign up to a legal System that assists white collor crime. And i dont mean priest and child. I mean Banker and barristor.

      Reply
  • The consent which is implied in every agreement is excluded, 1. By error in the essentials of the contract; ,is, if Paul, in the city of Philadelphia, buy the horse of Peter, which is in Boston, and promise to pay one hundred dollars for him, the horse at the time of the sale, unknown to either party, being dead. This decision is founded on the rule that he who consents through error does not consent at all; non consentiunt qui errant. Dig. 2, 1, 15; Dig. lib. 1, tit. ult. 1. 116, Sec. 2. 2. Consent is excluded by duress of the party making the agreement. 3. Consent is never given so as to bind the parties, when it is obtained by fraud. 4. It cannot be given by a person who has no understanding, as an idiot, nor by one who, though possessed of understanding, is not in law capable of making a contract, as a feme covert. See Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

    A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

    Reply
  • ,Society

    1. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent.
    2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or un-incorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.
    3. By civil society is usually understood a state, a nation or a body political.
    4. In civil law, by society is meant a partnership.

    Statute

    1. Legislative act: an act passed by a legislative body.
    2. A formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a county, state, city or county
    3. Legislated rule of society which has the force of Law

    Person

    1. A corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

    Reply
  • I challenge Fergal to respond. TNS Rdio Host Vin would love to have a live debate with him regarding his article.
    Don’t think it will ever happen though, since he’ll never be able to back up the false statements that he has made.
    He’s more likely to go back into his legal “rat hole”, from whence he came.

    Reply
  • Shit article.

    Reply
    • Well why read it ? Was interesting but not completely correct and does almost seem to encourage that we all do as we are told . Not suggesting lawlessness but the odd protest might work and I don’t mean sitting in a tent on dame street !

      Reply
  • It’s not freemanism can you please get that right, it’s called being a free-thinking human being exercising the rights that THEY wrote into law, if they don’t want us to do it then why even write them?

    For such a Catholic country you’s are very against the teachings of Jesus…what did he do with the tax men? Aw that’s right that part is conveniently ignored constantly, what happened to him, the romans murdered him then hypocritically spread his teachings as moral…if that’s the case why are we paying tax on something that isn’t a profit if the law is based on roman law…here’s why…you’re a slave that’s allowed to walk around.

    Reply
  • This extremely misleading and inaccurate article by barrister Fergal Crehan, is totally inaccurate and intentionally misleading. Currently as I write this comment, it is being totally taken apart on TNS Radio, which can be listened to live on

    http://tnsradio.ning.com/
    or later (as a podcast) on http://www.tnsradio.com/vins-pods.html.

    If reading this comment look for the podcast:
    TnsRadioHostVin Sunday 9pm – Midnight (for Sunday 4 March) when it becomes available (probably in the next 24 hours).

    Don’t fall for the bullshit, just because dear Fergal is a barrister, with a few letters after his name.

    Reply
  • Definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO

    L. Lat. A man of straw, oue of no substance, put forward as bail or surety.

    Read more: STRAMINEUS HOMO | Definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO (Black’s Law Dictionary)

    Reply
  • The article says quote:- “There is literally not one single instance, worldwide, of Freeman arguments ever succeeding before a court” Obviously the author did not do any research?…see here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOqIOLJTgaw the video speaks for itself, sham journalism is everywhere nowadays. This article has no substance.

    Reply
    • Did you actually watch the video? The guy goes in, says he is not the person they have summonsed and then starts banging on about an oath. The matter is adjourned presumably given that the woman clearly states “that’s the end of the matter for today” and he leaves claiming victory. Typically for these sorts of Freemen videos you never see or hear evidence of the actual outcome which was likely a bench warrant for non-attendance and his subsequent arrest.

      Reply
    • You say “you never see or hear evidence of the actual outcome”
      Take a look at outcome of guy called Will arrested, jailed in Limerick (without charge), and then released, just a couple of weeks ago. He did not give the courts juridiction over him, meaning that eventaully they HAD TO release him. Yes things don’t always work for Sovereigns – Freemen, because they are learning as they go along – trail blazing a course for the rest of us, throught the largely corrupt legal system that we currently have.

      Reply
    • Oh dear, Is That IT? Can I please have back the three minutes I just wasted watching that video?

      Reply
  • @ Keith Rooney I suppose you will assume the same about this one- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8zowJOtM8

    Reply
  • This tax does not HAVE TO BE PAID, read the Constitution, property ownership is a Right, therefore it can have no charges on it, because then the Right would be a privilage! Buy a copy of the Constitution from Easons for €2.50ish and educate yourselves about your Rights, because a Right can not be challenged!

    Reply
  • Definition of COURThttp://blackslawdictionary.org/court/

    Reply
  • certificate legal definition

    noun

    An official or sworn document that formally attests something to be true. Also called certification.
    A formal document certifying some interest, permission, right, or status granted to its bearer.

    Reply
  • I didn’t write these as you well now, they are from legal books & constitution, for all to research.
    You are a Barrister you are paid to twist & wriggle the law/legislation, you are doing it now,
    FFS, Barristers have no morals just the need for €€€€€€€€€€€€€, you’s will defend murderers etc and say it is your job.
    You’s get paid win or lose, freeman don’t need or want you and we are shown the public an alternative route when face with court, educate your self, and stop lining barristers/solicitiors pockets.

    What ever i write here you will argue because you are protecting your society and lively hood, and your allegance is to the BAR, not the people.

    You can reasearch me and my cases as your as in the system, easily done, and review my cases, The hounarble Mirian Malone knows my story

    Reply
  • All the above, yes is copy/paste job, from legal dicyionarys.

    Reply
    • better ireland,
      when you are posting these qoutes, maybe you should also give your opinion of what they mean. what is the purpose of the qoutes.
      as it is you have made no point at all

      Reply
  • dictionary

    Reply
  • Who pays for the appeal to the District Court?

    Reply
  • Where do the “BAR” get their alledge authority? and legislation you can link me so i can view.?
    Can i join your society,

    Reply
  • You read it wrong, i meant, as they are able to access court info better than i can, i will pass my details over to them in private to research the case and come back and discuss it on here
    i know i won / had the case dismissed ,

    Reply
  • Where does a judge get his authority ?????

    Reply
  • Daragh, are you a Barrister/Solicitor.? If so prove that you are, and i will pass you my details & court case number etc, and you can look it up

    Reply
  • And when using the Constitution, Use the Irish text as stated,

    Reply
  • Hope this posts.

    Look what i say works, i have tried & tested and succeded using it, Your a Barrister, go check it out,
    We can argue back/forth and get no where, or you can go check to see can you prove me wrong

    Reply
  • @Keith i type out a long reply twice and posted , but the journal said they failed . FU J

    Reply
  • so when do we start gassing jews so that our german masters are happy maybe enda might be able to scronge a bit of building work on the chambers for the few construction workers that cant leave this vile festering pit of human grief that used to be Ireland .

    Reply
  • access_denied
    Window Closing …

    Close

    Reply
  • No man i wasn’t putting down/slating your comment, i was genuine is my offer, i asked keith to do so earlier

    Reply
  • dammed if i do dammed if i don’t . i am not gong to argue some1 else’s case on what he did/didn’t do, i speak for my self & own case.
    Will i face book you the details? , honest my word is no good here and i can’t get access to the said info. you can post what/if you find, just keep my personal details private.

    Reply
    • I’d rather not to be honest as I think if you want to protect your privacy then that’s your right and I would rather not put myself in the position of being responsible for maintaining that. You and I are on opposite sides of an unwinnable argument as your arguments are circular and unsustainable from my position and from your stance my argument is part of a conspiracy that propagates my own fortune (laughable an idea as the last part of that is!).

      Keep your privacy. If nothing else that is one thing we both agree on, that personal privacy is important to maintain, notwithstanding that you clearly looked me up to learn about me. (Which I do understand from you perspective).

      I warn against Freemanism because I have seen the problems it can cause for people and have researched it thoroughly. I hope you never have to face that situation and I sincerely hope you never cause someone else to end up in such a situation.

      Reply

Add New Comment