Quite possibly the first rule of any court room, of any type, in any form of civilization in the world, is that the Judge presiding over said court, must be unbiased and honourable. This is for a very obvious reasons. If the Judge is biased, how can they possibly hope to judge a situation in a fair way? Enter Judge Mary Laffoy of the High Court. Judge Mary Laffoy presides over a lot of the cases that Ben Gilroy and People For Economic Justice attend, in an attempt to keep people in their homes. Judge Mary Laffoy has been responsible for some of the most heinous miscarriages of justice thus far encountered by People For Economic Justice.
The video below highlights the character of this woman. Ms. Justice Mary Laffoy is seen in the video below, instructing law students on how to evict families from their homes. This clearly demonstrates that Ms. Justice Mary Laffoy is entirely biased on the matter of eviction. How on earth can she stand and judge the merits of a case on the topic, when a banks interests are weighed against the rights of a family to keep warm and out of the elements?
The Honourable Ms. Justice Mary Laffoy
You can read plenty of stories about Ms. Mary Laffoy elsewhere on the site. The most obvious one is the classic miscarriage of justice that was the case of Gerry Burns.
One thing not related to People For Economic Justice that we can thank Ms Mary Laffoy for is the blocking of the injunction by Independent TD Thomas Pringle, against the ratification of the European Stability Mechanism. Mr. Pringle argued that the ESM was linked to the Fiscal Treaty. As the Fiscal Treaty was put to the people in a referendum, so to should the ESM ratification. Ms Mary Laffoy felt otherwise. Find a full article on the topic here.
This week Ben Gilroy was interviewed by Scottish Sovereign On The Land, via broadcast by TNS Radio. During the interview they cover the events surrounding Constitution Halts Sheriff. In that video, Ben Gilroy and People For Economic Justice halted the repossession of a mans house by the county Sheriff, as well as highlighting the behavior of An Garda Siochana, when they assist the Sheriff in events such as that.
Also covered is the unlawful seizure of Ben Gilroy’s car by a private mechanic, on the instruction of An Garda Siochana. Ben’s solution was to simply invoice the mechanic, and take him to court if he finds that the invoice goes unpaid. Two can play the commerce game as Ben say’s! Listen in below for more.
The Interview With Ben Gilroy:
This video provides a very important comparison between the Irish Constitution and the Constitution of Great Britain. The Irish Constitution, as a codified constitution can be utilized in the ways that Ben Gilroy is famous for. The British Constitution however, is an uncodified constitution that is highly open to interpretation.
Ben also covers an instance in court following the incident with the Receiver of the business of Mr. Gerry Burns. In this instance the Judge instructed (verbally) the debtor in question not to interfere with the receivers work at his business. The man kindly informed the judge that he would follow any order, made by her, and also signed by her instead of a court clerk. The judge refused this, which is a clear indication that the judge is fully aware that what she is doing is illegal, and won’t sign the order as it would tie her to the crime!
Ben Gilroy and the owner of The Junction Bar in Glounthaune, Co Cork, decided it was time to take back the bar from the receivers who had moved in. In this TV3 report the owner politely informed the manager (in other words, the receiver) that he has been dismissed. The owner of course has the right to do this as the receiver acts as agent for both the owner of the premises, and the bank in question. As the owner or The Junction Bar did not contract the receiver to act as agent for them, the owner has no obligation for the receiver to do so.
Aside from this fact, the receiver has an equitable duty of care to both the bank, and the owner of The Junction Bar, and as they have not performed on this duty of care, the owner has opted to dismiss them. The topic is covered in more details in the video concerning Mr. Gerry Burns. In a true equitable duty of care, the receiver would need to see the tri-party agreement used to create the loan in question. It is a fair assessment to suggest that a receiver who would ask for such things from the bank (which they may not have) would not be called in as a receiver on behalf of the bank in the future. Due to this implied incentive not to ask, receivers tend not to perform as well on their duty of care to the owner of the property, as they might do for the bank that called them in the first place, rather than renegotiating the loan to see that it gets paid without need for litigation.
As ever Ben has advised the owner of The Junction Bar to give the banks nothing until they document and prove the obligation. Given the banks tendency towards securitization, they may find that challenge difficult if not impossible. Due to this, the bank may regret not just renegotiating the loan, and getting their money back more slowly and certainly surely.