Ben Gilroy Interview on EastCoast FM

EastCoast FM logo who interviewed Ben GilroyToday Ben Gilroy had a short little interview with EastCoast FM. They kick off the interview with a mention of Constitution Halts Sheriff. Following on from this mention they ask Ben why he is of the opinion that the money being paid back to the bondholders is unconstitutional.

Ben Gilroy stated that it is because the debt is classed as an odious debt, and that under United Nations law, countries are not required to pay odious debts following the fall of the regime that incurred them.

EastCoast FM interview with Ben Gilroy:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The presenter asserts that we agreed to the payments. Ben Gilroy states that this is definitely not the case. Following the fall of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gáel made promises of “not one more cent”. This would mean that payments to the bondholders directly flies in the face of the mandate the current government received from the Irish electorate when they took power.

The interview closes with a mention of one of People For Economic Justice’s earlier talks in Tinaheely.

Source: EastCoast FM.

Ben Gilroy Halts Receivers

Today we join Ben Gilroy outside the business Stitch ‘n’ Fix owned by Mr. Gerry Burns in Navan. After several requests for meetings and documents from Mr. Burns to the banks were apparently ignored, receivers turned up on the premises, changed the locks, and denied Mr. Burns access to his business. Luckily he decided to contact People For Economic Justice, and Ben Gilroy informed Gerry that the receiver worked as an agent, not only for the bank, but for he, Gerry, as well.

Under Irish law, a person cannot have an agent forced upon them. This is due to the fact that when someone is acting as an agent on half of a person, that person, not the agent, is responsible for everything that agent does. The receiver also has what is called an “equitable duty of care” for both parties. We’ll discuss the specific event after the video.

Ben Gilroy, Gerry Burns, Fergus Lowe and Ms Justice Mary Laffoy

So in this case the receiver refused to detail whether he had or had not seen the tri-party agreement between the bank and Mr. Burns. If the receiver has not seen such a thing, then he has absolutely no basis to act against the debtor, and perhaps more importantly, if the bank does not have this agreement, then Mr. Burns would owe the bank absolutely nothing.

Notice also how the Garda in the video states plainly “this matter appears civil”. This is a basis for many of Ben Gilroy’s meetings with An Garda Siochana. As Gerry (or indeed any debtor) has broken no laws, the Gardai have absolutely no reason to even be present. In this specific case however, Ben Gilroy had shown that the receiver was in fact trespassing. As is almost a theme across the various People For Economic Justice videos, the only laws being broken are done on the part of the bank.

Perhaps the most important point raised in this video is the issue of signed orders. The receiver turned up with a court order, which granted him the power to receive the business. This order was not signed by the judge who issued it, but was in fact signed by the registrar, in black ink. If a court order is not signed in blue ink, but the judge that issued it, it is totally invalid, and grants no power what so ever. On top of this, if the receiver does not have a copy of the mortgage deed, and a copy of the tri-party agreement, then he has not acted on his duty of care, and is illegally trespassing in your business. Do not let them take your business without these three things.

As for the actions of the judge, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, while in the commercial court itself, we will leave any conclusions on that matter to you the reader.

Midwest Radio Interview Ben Gilroy

Midwest Radio who interviewed Ben Gilroy

Today Ben Gilroy was interviewed by Midwest Radio. During this interview Ben discusses the talk held in Wicklow, featuring himself, Ray Whitehead, Clare Leonard and others. Ben also covers the usual bases with Midwest Radio, such as the unsecured bondholder repayments and the court case against the government.

During the interview, and during the talk, Ben talks about how democracy in Ireland is simple a politician turning up on your doorstep to ask for your vote based on certain promises, and then once in office essentially does whatever they please on any given issue. They then return in 5-7 years to see if you might give them your vote again. This culture of ignoring whatever mandate they receive simply must stop, and the solution is briefly mentioned in the interview. More on that afterwards.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Direct Democracy As Discussed On Midwest Radio:

This is one of the earliest interviews in which Ben discovers the political party currently being set up called Direct Democracy Ireland. This party is entering the political spectrum with a single mission in mind: to restore the illegally removed final two articles from the Irish Constitution, which contained the right to direct democracy, as well as the right to remove people from political office if they failed to uphold the mandate that their local area put them in office to action.

Direct Democracy is a relatively simple political process, that was a part of the original 1922 Bunreacht Na hEireann, and was removed in the revised 1937 constitution. In this system, any citizen can bring about a referendum on any given topic, provided they can gather a predetermined amount of signatures in support of the issue’s being raised to a referendum. In the original wording of the constitution that number was 75,000. If this system had been in place at 2008, and a bailout of unguaranteed bondholders had been announced, how long would it have taken to gather that number of signatures  and what would have been the result of that referendum? We at People For Economic Justice don’t feel it would have taken more than an afternoon.

Source: Midwest Radio, listen to more of their interviews here.