LMFM Interview With Ben Gilroy

LMFM who Interviewed Ben Gilroy

As you all may have read, we ran an article yesterday concerning the launch of Ireland’s newest political service, Direct Democracy Ireland. On the same day, Ben Gilroy travelled down to LMFM’s home town of Drogheda to give an interview on that same topic.

Over the course of the interview Ben and the radio host discussed the topic of the bailout of the bondholders in the Irish banks, and what would have happened had Articles 47 and 48 of the Constitution not been illegally removed 75 years ago.

On the night of the government’s secret bank guarantee Brian Lenihan would not have been able to sign off on the bailout. He would not have had the authority to indebt the people of the country to the banks in the sum of €64,000,000,000. Instead he would have simply told the people who allegedly persuaded him, that Ireland had a system called Direct Democracy and that in that system the government had a lawful duty call within days for a referendum to decide on this matter.

The LMFM Interview

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.

Ben and the host of course cover the topic of bank loans, and the general trials that People For Economic Justice find ourselves in. The host of LMFM reels at the news that far from being in possession of a mortgage contract with the defendant, that the bank in fact sold on those contracts, in batches numbering in the thousands, years beforehand. This practice as we all know is called Securitization.

In other news covered in interview, Ben won two cases last week in the Masters Court. He did this by challenging the court on its Subject Matter Jurisdiction. There are four legs to Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Without all four, the court cannot proceed. They are: The plaintiff  the defendant, the judge, and a competent witness. Can the bank provide a competent witness? Someone who directly witnessed the signing of the contract between the defendant and plaintiff? No so far anyway…

Source: LMFM Radio. Listen to more of their interviews here.

Tipp FM Interview Ben Gilroy

Tipp FM who interviewed Ben GilroyAn odd circumstance led to this interview with Ben Gilroy on Tipp FM. The news somehow reached Tipp FM (as well as a few other people we heard from), that the Sheriff who recently evicted Eugene Dooley from his constitutionally protected home, had been arrested! As of Friday 21st of July 2017 , we are unaware as to where this news originated, but as far as we are aware, there is no truth to it. Not that we would not like it to be true, and that every Sheriff in the country would be arrested, but Mairead Ahern is still walking free.

That aside, this interview serves as a nice little catch up interview.

The interview with Tipp FM

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.

Covered during this interview are many of the issues that People For Economic Justice argues against. Ben informs Tipp FM of the illegal action knows as securitization committed by all banks. Securitization is the practice of selling a mortgage on the stock exchange, and usually happened immediately after the mortgage had been agreed. This practice led to the bank bailout, but is often used to the borrowers advantage by Ben Gilroy when he asks receivers and solicitors to see the loan agreements in question. They of course can rarely produce such an agreement, given that they sold them.

Bolstering securitization was the phenomenon of drive-by valuations. As the banks wanted healthy mortgages to sell on the stock exchange, they would often spend little to no time placing a value on a house. Normally they would simply glance at it, come up with the highest six to seven-figure they could, and name it. This led to one interesting circumstance that Ben informed Tipp FM about. A man came to a bank with an agreement to buy a house for €750k. The bank informed him that he originally asked for €850k, and that he must take that, or the agreement was void!

Finally, there is the brain transplants that certain members of Fine Gael seem to have undergone, the day after they came into power. We have all heard, and remember, the famous outcry by Leo Varadkar that “the banks aren’t getting another cent“. We linked to that one as it is so universally known. The video below however is a less well know one. It is the current Finance Minister, while he was Fine Gaels spokesman for finance when they were in opposition, decrying Fianna Fail for paying back bondholders. One aspect we enjoy is the giggling of Brian Hayes and Leo Varadkar during his speech. Do they know that Noonan is simply saying this for effect, and in fact fully intends to uphold the payments? You decide.

Listen to more of Tipp FM’s interviews here.

Ben Gilroy Takes Back The Junction Bar from Receiver

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.