Ireland: Daragh, Patrick & Dafyyd say banks make money fast!

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Ireland: Daragh, Patrick & Dafyyd say banks make money fast!

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

The Irish courts continue to working their way through the usual OPCA debt removal schemes. This recent decision of the Republic of Ireland’s High Court is a nice (and amusing) illustration:
The plaintiffs are three dudes who bought some commercial property, financed with a 2.2 million Euro mortgage. They defaulted and a receiver was appointed to manage the properties.

Our protagonists, Daragh McMarthy, Patrick Bevan, and Dafyyd Hughs, then sued (para 2)
The plaintiffs commenced the present proceedings in October, 2012. They claim damages for goods and property which have been allegedly stolen. They also claim damages for theft, deception, breach of duty, misrepresentation, causation, fraud, deceit, non-performance, breach of contract, breach of promise, attempted damage by perjury, dishonest and insolvent trading and counterfeiting. It is only fair to say that no claims have been against the receiver, Mr. Cotter, save that his appointment is invalid. That claim is really contingent on the quite separate claims as against the Bank, the basis for which can now be examined.
Apparently D, P, & D’s style of legal prose left a bad taste (para. 3):
While the plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in support of these claims, it has to be said that the nature of the averments are not the easiest to follow. In many respects the plaintiffs – who are litigants in person - have perfected a style of legal writing which can, without any disrespect, be fairly described as a pastiche copy of the high style of the 19th century pleader. Almost any number of the thirty three paragraphs of this supporting affidavit could be cited for this purpose, but the opening paragraph may serve to give a flavour of what was later to come
“This Honourable Court should in all that is Equitable and Just grant all reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs on foot of the Defendants’ unlawful intentions, actions and collusions to wilfully steal the Plaintiffs’ property and wantonly destroy their business.”
Their argument? Why, the bank didn’t loan them money – it made money out of thin air (para. 4):
… It turns out that the principal argument now advanced by the plaintiffs is that the defendant Bank did not advance them loans of money at all, but rather that it illegally created currency, so that – or so the argument runs - there is no valid contract of loan. Thus, in their replies to particulars of 18th October, 2013, the plaintiff’s state:
“The Bank of Scotland monetized our wet inked signed promissory notes/loan offers for their benefit and they were monetized with intent.”
Oh yeah, and there isn’t a loan unless the bank can produce “the real wet inked signed original promissory notes/loan offers” (para 5). But the bank brought those to court (para 6), so so much for that. Sneaky banksters ...

So back to the Making Money Fast argument. Hogan J. points out this is not only simply wrong, but defies modern reality:
7. So far as the illegally created currency argument is concerned, the plaintiffs drew my attention to an article contained in Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 2014, Q.1, entitled “Money Creation in the Modern Economy” by members of the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate. It seems to me that the plaintiffs have completely misunderstood the thrust of that article. Of course, no one could deny that in a modern banking system banks can – and do - increase the money supply by the granting of loans and credits. In that particular sense – and I emphasise these words – a macro-economist might say that the banking system “creates” money by thus increasing the money supply. This, however, is scarcely a new insight and simply reflects views which all the great economists – ranging from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman – have expressed from time to time.

8. All of this, however, is entirely irrelevant as a matter of law. At one point Mr. McCarthy seemed to argue that a loan could only be valid if something tangible (such as notes or coin) had been exchanged. At other times Mr. McCarthy suggested that he did not receive a loan of money at all, but rather that as the money advanced had been “created” by the bank, the underlying contract of loan was somehow invalid or inoperative. The plaintiffs also allege that by reason of this the Bank is guilty of fraud or, as they put it, fraud in the factum.

9. It is, I think, a measure of the desperate straits in which some litigants have found themselves as a result of the collapse in the property market from 2008 onwards that arguments of this kind have been seriously advanced, not only in this case but in other recent cases of the same kind, both here and in other jurisdictions, most notably Canada. A version of this fanciful theory had been advanced in Dempsey v. Enviston Credit Union [2006] BCSC 750 where it was described in the following terms by Garson J.:
“In his submissions on the motion, in the actions concerning him, Mr. Dempsey described the ‘money for nothing’ theory. He stated that the banks do not have money. Rather, they create money out of ‘thin air’…He says that the plaintiffs create money by signing promissory notes, and as soon as the promissory note is signed, the banks deposit money in their own statement of account. The bank does not place hard currency in the hands of the debtors. Mr. Dempsey then charge interest on nothing and that is a criminal rate of interest because interest is charged on nothing. Mr. Dempsey states: “it is not like the old days when people used to go to the bank and, in the back room, count out dollars, there is no law that allows the banks to create dollars out of thin air.”
10. It is scarcely a surprise that in Dempsey this argument was described by the British Columbia courts as “fanciful” and “completely devoid of merit.” Yet this has not deterred other litigants in this jurisdiction advancing similar arguments which are equally lacking in merit and which, indeed, lack any relationship to contractual or other legal realities.



14. The same can just as readily be said of the contention that a loan must be somehow be made by way of coin or notes, since this runs entirely contrary to modern realities. While the plaintiffs invoke the concept of fraud, nothing whatever has been advanced to support this claim. It is accordingly quite impossible to see how any kind of fraud is involved. The simple reality is that, as Birmingham J. put in Kearney, the plaintiffs have drawn down funds, obtained the benefit of these funds and now have an obligation to repay these loans.
And Canada gets a mention, with our mid-2000’s OPCA guru John Ruiz Dempsey! I think it’s simply delightful to see what is, in a certain sense, hideously specialized and weird case law being identified and used in other jurisdictions. Dempsey and his scheme was mentioned in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, so my hunch is that’s how the Irish lawyers found the reference.

Subsequently Meads v. Meads itself gets an mentioned (para. 11) along with the Irish case Freeman v. Bank of Scotland Ireland mentioned here (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9308).

D, P, & D also argued that since the Bank of Scotland had breached its loan contract as it “has wilfully monetized our promissory notes/loans and has possibly securitized our deed or mortgage.” That didn’t go far (para. 18):
… It is clear, incidentally, from the evidence of John Burnet, head of Credit Sanctioning at the Bank that these particular commercial mortgages were not securitized. It is further stated that as a result of the “monetizing” of the promissory notes/loans that the Bank is “not a part of interest in our estate and thus, the first defendant is fraudulent coercing the second defendants to action a defective deed of appointment.” It is not easy to decipher what exactly is meant by this. It seems to be just another version of the argument that the plaintiffs never entered into a valid contract of loan. Again, for the reasons stated, this claim is entirely unmeritorious and lacking in any substance whatever.
The D, P, & D scheme is just another OPCA money-for-nothing concept, and frivolous and vexatious: para. 16. The court has a certain sympathy for desperate debtors, but notes, correctly enough, that Daragh, Patrick, & Dafyyd are the architects of their present situation. They wanted to play in the real estate market, and they got burned:
19. While the persons who made what with hindsight appears to be poor commercial judgments by purchasing commercial or residential properties at the height of the property boom are entitled to our sympathy and understanding, this cannot take or affect from the legal rights of the parties. The plaintiffs entered into perfectly valid contracts of loan with the defendant bank on which they have now unfortunately defaulted, resulting in the appointment of a receiver. They cannot – and should not – be allowed to obstruct this process by commencing proceedings which are entirely devoid of merit and in so doing advance arguments that are both spurious and foolish.

20. I regret to say, however, that this is the only way in which these claims can be characterised. In these circumstances, I find myself coerced to the conclusion that these proceedings should be struck out pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 on the ground that they are frivolous and vexatious.
I don’t think we have a dedicated discussion to Dempsey here on Quatloos. He was a fake Filipino not-a-lawyer who launched all manner of unsuccessful lawsuits against The Oppressors. Dempsey made quite the impressive crater after he soared through the OPCA-sphere and then splatted into the Law Society of British Columbia. Here’s a few choice decisions that comment on Dempsey’s activities:
His style didn’t make him friends in the court. The British Columbia Court of Appeal had this to say:
[3] The hearing of this application did not proceed smoothly.

[4] The appellant would not identify himself as the appellant, claiming that John Ruiz Dempsey does not exist as a single person and that he is authorized to represent him. He launched into a series of statements, the gist of which, as I understood them, was that no court has jurisdiction over him.

[5] His behaviour was contumacious. I asked him many times whether he intended to proceed with the appeal, and if so, when he would file the necessary papers. He refused to answer those questions. The closest to a responsive answer was an off-hand remark that he may seek a stay of proceedings of the appeal. He said that he wanted no "commercial dealings" with the Court.

[6] When it became obvious that the appellant would not state his intentions regarding the appeal, I asked him to sit down. He refused and asserted that I had to listen to his submissions on various points, none of which had anything to do with the matter before me. He did not sit down and he did not stop talking. The sheriffs had to intervene. The decorum in chambers was lost when some of his supporters in the gallery called out accusations of unfairness.
Well, we’ve seen that script a few times before.

In the last of the three judgments listed above Dempsey’s play-acting as being a lawyer earned him 30 days in jail. And as far as I can tell, that’s the last anyone has heard of him.

Dempsey’s old website is gone, but for anyone who is curious or desire the services a “forensic litigation specialist”, Archive.org has what appears to be a full copy of it (https://web.archive.org/web/20100406032 ... nsuit.com/).

As you might expect, it’s pretty over-the-top, and goofy.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
The_Nidhogg
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: Ireland: Daragh, Patrick & Dafyyd say banks make money f

Post by The_Nidhogg »

I'm yet to encounter Dempsey by name on this side of the Irish sea but his ideas are depressingly common down in Englandshire :(

The "real wet ink signature" motiff seems to be all the rage at the moment aswell. There was a fellow going on about it on "no borders radio" but I'm afraid I zoned out and didn't listen- only so much sov tripe one can handle at any one time!
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Ireland: Daragh, Patrick & Dafyyd say banks make money f

Post by grixit »

Wouldn't this be sovereign haggis, not tripe?
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
The_Nidhogg
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: Ireland: Daragh, Patrick & Dafyyd say banks make money f

Post by The_Nidhogg »

Wouldn't this be sovereign haggis, not tripe?
very good! :lol: