in this video i want to take a look at a case there involving legal charlatans what the high
court judge has described as legal charlatans which ultimately has led to a repossession order
being granted against a couple from wexford to start mortgages in respect of a loan of €60 grand
the background to this case is that in 2011 i think it was the um couple the defendants
defaulted on their loan mortgage secured loan they owed about €15 grand at this stage 15 000
had they engaged properly with start and saw a solicitor or consulted with MABS that's the money
advice bureau service the judge had no doubt that a deal could have been done and an arrangement
could have been made they did not do this they took the most unwise stance according to the judge
of engaging in ill-advised correspondence with start and they stopped making payments in 2017
so the €15 000 which started off in 2011 with the default is now €60 000. but according to the judge
they appear to have fallen into the clutches of unregulated charlatans who sell vulnerable people
indebted people a crock of nonsense that there's some legal trick to avoid repayment of lawfully
in car debts or to have downloaded documents from such fraudsters this is the sort of pseudo-legal
nonsense that i made a video about before which was about people giving advice to debtors who
owe the banks quite a bit of money from say 2010 or 12 when the property market crashed
and which um the people the debtors were led to believe by these charlatans that there was some
legal loophole some trick of the loop which would avoid you in one fell swoop with one mighty leap
from your deaths from the clutches of your deaths it doesn't work like that and i've seen plenty of
so-called loopholes so-called technical defenses going down the tubes quite frankly in various
courts over the last 10 years or so but in this case unfortunately this couple badly advised
by what the high court has described as legal charlatans failed to make any payments since 2017
the judge said that it could take up to two years for the possession order to be enforced
he said there was still plenty of time to arrive at a repayment solution which would
not involve them losing their family home because as matters stand they run the risk
of or will lose their family home they cannot according to the judge pay absolutely nothing
to reduce still mounting arrears avoid any meaningful engagement with start
and expect that the courts will load their stance or that things will somehow work themselves out he
goes on to say then that a blizzard of documents from the defendants contained oddities including
a document which referred to being a living man and living woman who are not dead and whose
title in their estates had been invested as per section four of your cestui qui vie act of 1666.
this document according to the high court judge in the best legal language was "wanting in sense"
the judge said you cannot escape a debt simply by dying and he was mystified how an act enacted by
the english parliament in the reign of charles ii had anything to do with enforcing this loan
all borrowers he urged should avoid unregulated charities who offer false hope that repayment of
lawfully incurred debts can be readily evaded through some trick of the legal loop and to
avoid sending correspondence containing fanciful assertions propositions or texts
the defendants never engage with the substance of what must be engaged with that is their
continuing default under loan obligations he rejected all 27 grounds of challenge
including claims that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to make the order the case could not
be brought because one of the debtors had not consented to it and alleged breaches of human
rights law gdpr and international instruments there was absolutely no grounds for the debtor's
complaints that council for start was quite aggressive and really aggressive towards her
during the appeal hearing bottom line is there are very few very very few legal loopholes they have
been tried and tested down through the last 10 years or so people like this debtor's unfortunate
debtors are taking advice from what the judge in this case george maxx i can't remember his economy
has described as legal charlatans people who are giving pseudo-legal advice and referring
to natural law and laws going back to 1566 and 1666 an english parliament and so on and so forth
it's all as the judge says a pile of nonsense a pile of nonsense that simply will not stand up
will not win the day and in this situation remember this default firstly occurred in 2011
and i haven't paid any money since 2017 but when they defaulted in 2011 they owed about 15 grand
€15 000 and they stopped paying in 2017 obviously having taken some bad advice and having stopped
paying paying from 2017 the debts now to your ears and so on have amounted to €60 grand and the judge
has been left with no choice no legal option from a legal perspective put to grant the order
for repossession but he does make the point that there's still plenty of time to do a deal
but they will have to do a deal but it's an interesting case in so far as it is more of this
technical defense this legal nonsense this pseudo-legal
gobbledygook quite frankly from what he has described as legal charlatans and the
production of documents which are as he says wanting incense hope you find this
video useful if you do i'd appreciate if you give it the thumbs up down below thanks a lot