Full written response to PSNI request for journalistic NAMA material

 Dear Mr Geddes

 
I write in connection with your letter, received by me on 23 December 2016.

In the first paragraph you refer to your belief that I may hold material relevant to your investigation into evidence given by me to the Stormont DFP committee on 23 September 2015. 

I note that you do not expand on what alleged offences you are investigating. I would be somewhat surprised if you were investigating the nonsensical complaints submitted by the DUP, who are simply seeking to muddy the waters to deflect from the criminal actions of their associates, and alleged corruption by members of their party, in relation to Nama.

In this regard one would initially suspect that you are casting a wide net, with the purpose of engaging in a fishing expedition.  

It is my understanding that I am not a suspect in any investigation related to Nama or the hearing on 23 September 2015, if that is incorrect then I request you advise me of such.

The material I hold in relation to Nama has been published in my book and provided to the Stormont committee, and is therefore publicly available on the Assembly website, my blog and within my book ‘The Three Headed Dog’. I am of course happy to furnish you with a copy of same, should you so require.

In regards to the source of said material, or notes etc in relation to Nama or the hearing on 23 September 2015, this material is protected by journalistic privilege. The definition of journalism is a broad one, however I point out that I fall under the National Union of Journalists definition of journalistic work. In this regard the information to which you refer is excluded journalistic material.

The concept of confidentially for journalists protecting their sources, or more broadly the protection of journalistic material, is recognised in law, specifically within the Terrorism Act 2000 and Article 10 of the ECHR.

I suspect you already know that the material is excluded, or else you would not be sending me a letter asking for co-operation, but rather taking a more robust method to simply go ahead and seize such material.

I, at this point, wish to make clear that I am strongly asserting my right to protect the material to which you refer and therefore should you seek to try any back-door moves to seize it, then this will be strongly resisted legally. It would not, of course, be beyond the PSNI to fabricate a search warrant on the basis of some contrived unrelated ‘soft intelligence’ and use this as a method of seizing the material and subverting due process. I would respectfully advise you to resist any temptations to engage in such nefarious back-door tricks.

I note your implied threat within your letter that you reserve the right to go to the County Court. The PSNI can go to the County Court if they so wish, but such a fishing expedition will be strongly resisted.

In summary, I will not be co-operating with your investigation nor will I be making any material covered by journalistic privilege available to the PSNI.

Kind Regards
 

Jamie Bryson

 

   

 

 

 

 

Bombshell claims- Does Jonathan Bell have tapes? 

 It has been sensationally claimed, from authorative sources, that former DUP Minister Jonathan Bell has tape recordings of meetings with DUP SpAds, senior party members and Civil Servants.

It is believed that Mr Bell began taping meetings following concerns arising over alleged undue influence being exerted by DUP SpAds. If, as is claimed, such tapes exist then they could fatally undermine the claims of the Joint First Minister Arlene Foster.

Today’s Assembly descended into a farce as DUP Speaker Robin Newton allowed a personal speech to be made by DUP leader Arlene Foster, without any lawful basis for doing so under the Assembly’s standing orders.

Robin Newton’s position is already on shaky ground following revelations over astonishing conflicts of interest in relation to the Social Investment Fund, and the Charter NI scandal. It now appears that the Speaker may have fallen on his sword at the behest of his DUP leader, Arlene Foster.

The DUP continue to try and stifle calls for a Judge-led public inquiry. There is, however, a way to circumvent the DUP’s attempts to block a full public inquiry. Jonathan Bell, as a former Minister involved in the administration of the RHI scheme, could apply to the Secretary of State under Section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005 and request a full public inquiry. 

This would take the decision out of the hands of the Executive, and force the Secretary of State to take the decision on whether there should be a full public inquiry. Should the Secretary of State refuse, then this is then a decision that could be judicially reviewed and in this regard a number of documents could, at that stage, be compelled and entered into the public record.

  

It has further been exposed that Arlene Foster did receive a second email, 8 days after the email released by the DUP, which made very specific allegations about the RHI scheme. The existence of this email was reported by the Irish News last week, and the content of the email was reported on the BBC Nolan Show this morning.

The drip feed of allegations in relation to the RHI scheme are set to continue for quite some time. There are a number of DUP members who either personally, or via their families, have benefitted handsomely from the RHI scheme and specific DUP SpAds are also understood to have encouraged associates to get onboard the scheme . 

Mr Stephen Brimstone, former SpAd to the DUP Joint First Minister, is connected to a gross abuse of the scheme whereby a pipe was used to heat a private home, which was being run from a shed with ‘cash for ash’ boilers.

Today’s drama in the Assembly further undermines the DUP’s electoral slogan of ‘Arlene 4 FM’ and the DUP’s assertion that only a vote for Arlene Foster could keep Martin McGuiness out. It now has become clear, as many people pointed out during the election campaign, that electoral slogan was a lie. Arlene Foster cannot even make a speech without the approval of their partners in Government, Sinn Fein.

Revealed: DUP donor one of the largest beneficiaries of RHI scheme 

A large DUP donor from Clogher Valley is one of the largest beneficiaries of the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme, it can be revealed. 

Fred Maxwell owns a farm with up to 270,000 chickens. Mr Maxwell is a well known farmer and is also a DUP donor. 

Mr Maxwell spent around £1m to build a factory to convert timber into shavings for wood fire boilers. 

Mr Maxwell’s farm has at least one boiler and is one of those that stands to benefit from an enormous amounts of public money from the ‘cash for ash’ scheme. 

The well known farmer is known to have close relationships with senior DUP SpAds and it is believed he was advised to invest in building a factory in order to maximise his profits. This advice is believed to have come from DUP SpAds, who also have deep connections to the farming community. 

Mr Maxwell approached a number of other farmers and encouraged them to ‘get onboard’ the scheme and boasted of the huge profits he would make as a result of the scheme. 

This raises further questions for the DUP, as sources have questioned whether party donors were rewarded via the RHI scheme, for their financial donations. It has even been sensationally suggested that there was an agreement that some of the profits creamed from the RHI scheme would be funnelled back into the party as ‘donations’.  

In a separate development it has been revealed that the old Ulster Weavers bleachworks in Bandbridge has 12 boilers in operation and is believed to have been leaving doors open to allow heat out, and maximise profits from the scheme. The building was not heated for 8 years prior to the beginning of the RHI scheme. 

Cui Bono- 13 questions for the DUP 

1. Timothy Johnston told Nolan show that he did not seek to influence, but rather to ‘advise’. Was, therefore, his advice sought on the RHI, or did he provide unsolicited advice? 

2. Arlene Foster told BBC Spotlight that she passed on allegations from the whistleblower. The DUP later said there were no allegations. Was it the case that Arlene Foster believed- wrongly- that Spotlights source was a second whistleblower that she met in Enniskillen? 

3. Arlene Foster later told the Nolan show that she knew she had contact with the whistleblower and that she knew the lady had emailed her. How would Arlene Foster have known the identity of the lady who was Spotlights source? Did Spotlight tell Arlene Foster? 

4. Did any DUP SpAds- specifically John Robinson, Stephen Brimstone, Andrew Crawford and Timothy Johnston- or their families (including extended family) benefit from the RHI scheme? 

5. The DUP demanded that the names of those who received OTR letters should be published. The DUP haven’t made such strong demands in relation to the RHI scheme, why not? 

6. Did Arlene Foster ever previously report or deal with any complaints of intimidation, bullying or harassment against Jonathon Bell? 

7. If Jonathon Bell was making females feel intimidated and bullied, then why did Arlene Foster not immediately remove Mr Bell from post once she became First Minister? 

8. Did Dr Andrew Crawford, John Robinson, Timothy Johnston or Stephen Brimstone circulate an email memo advising DUP associates to get onboard the scheme, prior to the pending closure of the scheme? 

9. Will Arlene Foster authorise the release of all documentation, as Jonathon Bell has done? 

10. Will the DUP support a Judge-led public inquiry into the RHI scheme, proposed by Mr Bell? 

11. Can the DUP confirm that Mr Stephen Brimstone was running a pipe from an empty shed to heat a family home? 

12. How much did F&EM Ltd, specifically Mr David Brown, make in 2016 in consultancy fees for advising recipients of the RHI scheme? 

13. Can the DUP confirm that 12 boilers were in the former Ulster Weavers bleachworks in Banbridge , and that building wasn’t heated at all for 8 years prior to the RHI scheme? 

Appeals tribunal confirms NUJ membership! 

The NEC Appeals Tribunal in London have overturned the decision of the Belfast and District Branch of the NUJ to reject my membership. 

I represented myself at the hearing in London yesterday and today’s decision has vindicated my earlier assertions that I did meet the criteria for membership, despite the Belfast & District branch asserting otherwise. 

The public intervention of the Belfast and District NUJ into this matter was, in my opinion, foolish. I never sought conflict in relation to this matter, however I had no option but to defend myself when others sought to aggressively oppose my application, for what I felt were entirely illegitimate reasons. 

However, the appeal tribunal has ruled definitively in my favour, so that is where the matter ends. 

There cannot be a glass ceiling for people of the Unionist community, or those whose views are seen as unpopular. We must challenge inequalities, or attempts to tell us that certain professions- such as law and journalism- aren’t for us. 

I look forward to the support of the Branch, and the wider NUJ, when the inevitable legal onslaught- designed to get to my sources in relation to Nama- comes. 

Moves are already afoot in this regard, and such attempts to use legal mechanisms, in order to expose sources of whistleblower and journalistic material, should be resisted by all that cherish freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. 

I want to place on record my thanks for the NUJ lifetime member of 61 years standing, that very kindly wrote in support of me. I have never met this individual, yet he took the time to offer his support. (I have not sought this individuals permission to name him publicly, so therefore I won’t do so at this stage). 

Serious questions raised over PwC 

 The business advisors, that were brought in to carry out a report into the shambolic Renewable Heat Incentive scheme which will cost the tax payer over £400 million, are involved in numerous scandals, it can be revealed.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) is also regularly used by the PSNI to carry out forensic accounting in relation to economic crime.

It can be revealed that, according to well-placed legal sources, PwC are now facing becoming embroiled in an ongoing legal action by a high profile Northern Ireland businessman.

 It is alleged that PwC were appointed by a local company’s directors, on the instruction of a prominent bank. It was not, however, revealed to the company that PwC and the bank were actually working together to strip company of their assets. They then disposed of the assets, at a knock down price, to their chosen circle of business associates.

It isn’t the first time that Pwc have been involved in scandals. Below is a sample list of some of the recent issues to arise in relation to PwC:

• PwC were sued for $5.5bn for negligence in a mortgage case

• PwC were sued by Bill Gates over a corruption scandal

• Prosecutors investigated PwC for their role in the Tyco scandal

• Former PwC employers faced trial over their role in LuxLeaks scandal

• Temporary worker was sent home from PwC, for not wearing high enough heels

• Tesco dumped PwC after a £263 million accounting fiasco

• PwC were implicated in the Barclay’s libor scandal

• PwC have been accused of selling mass marketed tax avoidance schemes

• PwC partners faced trial for tax fraud

• John Lewis dumped PwC over concerns arising from an increasing number of scandals

• PwC employee had to publicly admit that he took confidential files

• PwC forced to investigate a sexist email scandal involving staff in their Dublin office

PwC have previously been alleged to have been involved in a pattern of collusion with corrupt banks. 

The pattern referred to is that a bank advises their customer to appoint PWC, however, behind the customer’s back PwC reports all confidential matters to the bank. These confidential reports include tax returns and audit files, unlawfully passed to the bank without the client’s knowledge or approval. PwC then advise their ‘client’, at a time of the banks choosing, that they should go into administration. 

More often than not it is PwC themselves that are appointed as administrators, and accordingly they strip the client’s assets and sell them to pre-selected parties, generally picked from the favoured golden circle.

The above pattern of behaviour is at odds with the words of Paul Terrington, the Chairman of the Institute of Directors and PwC (NI). Writing in the March/April edition of Business First, Mr Terrington, in an article carrying the headline ‘Trust’, said;

“Across the nation we are experiencing a growth in cynicism and a decline in trust.”

He further said “what underpins trust are transparency, honesty and a tone from the top that defines the purpose of an organisation, its value and place within wider society.”

There is much more to come in relation to ongoing scandals involving PwC, however at this point in time it is important that PwC’s role in the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme is fully explored. 

It is further important that the PSNI explain why PwC, who are embroiled in a litany of fraud and corruption scandals, are chosen to carrying out forensic accounting for their economic crime department.

If trust and transparency are key, then those who sought PwC’s assistance on the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme, and the PSNI that continue to use PWC’s services, must inform the public whether they feel that this firm can be trusted.

Kearney & Tweed- Why don’t you sue me? 

I was today named in the Belfast Telegraph, in relation to litigation being pursued by Mr Paul Tweed on behalf of Paddy Kearney, one of Peter Robinson’s golden circle of property developers. 

Mr Kearney, of course, benefitted from a sweetheart deal from Cerberus, not only having over £224m written off- but further picking up the assets of his competitors at knock down prices. 

Key to Mr Kearney’s involvement is Alan Mains, his close associate. Mr Mains was named in my Nama book for his involvement in the Smithwick tribunal, and was later exposed as having been involved in handling Mr Kevin Fulton. 

Mr Mains was involved in a fraud case, of Mr Luigi Marotta, which was later thrown out when it became apparent that the PSNI may have had to explain who Kevin Fulton’s handlers in the case were. This, of course, would have raised all sorts of uncomfortable questions about Main’s evidence to Smithwick. 

The legal strategy of Paul Tweed is to sue Daithi McKay as a conduit to get to me, and then have the real battle over the revealing of sources. This entire process of ‘litigation’ is about finding a way of compelling me to reveal my sources- something I will never do! 

If Mr Kearney sued me, then I couldn’t be compelled to give evidence, but by suing Mr McKay they can then seek to compel me to give evidence. At this point they will then seek the court to compel me to reveal my sources, and I will refuse. It is then that the real battle will be fought. 

This isn’t about money, this isn’t about reputation, this is a game of chess that Mr Tweed has plotted out. The problem for them is that they aren’t the only ones to have war gamed it out long ago. 

So Mr Kearney and Mr Tweed (and Mr Robinson in the background)- let’s get all the pawns off the table and go right at it! 

I have republished today- in full- my allegations about Mr Kearney before the committee. They aren’t covered by privilege, and I stand over each and every allegation fully. Go ahead and serve your writ! 

Paul Tweed knows the battle is going to be over trying to get me to reveal my sources, I know that’s where the battle is going to be- so why waste time with satellite litigation around it? 

  

 

It’s time to sweep away the contrived notion of ‘parity of esteem’

One of the most flawed parts of the Belfast Agreement is the contrived notion of parity of esteem. Parity means equality and esteem is defined as ‘to have high regard or great respect for’. This naturally creates the environment that allows the notion that those who aspire to Irish unity should have their political aspirations held in equal regard, in terms of state recognition, as the majority of people in Northern Ireland, whose wish is to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. 

This is a complete perversion of democracy. All individuals are entitled to the same rights, protections and equality under the law. There is no right, however, which grants those with a minority political aspiration to have the outworking of such an aspiration- such as flying of foreign flags etc. – receive formal Government recognition. There is no legitimate or lawful requirement for the expressions of any foreign identity to be held in parity with the sovereign flags and emblems of the United Kingdom. 

If we follow this claim of ‘parity of esteem’ through to its logical conclusion, then the Irish flag should have equal standing alongside the Union flag. The Irish National anthem should have equal standing alongside the National anthem of the United Kingdom, and the emblems of the British Armed Forces should be reduced to equal standing alongside those of the Irish Army. 

And the above examples lay bare the political motivations cloaked in the language of ‘parity of esteem’. If the sovereign symbols and expressions of identity are reduced to equivalence with those regarded as their own by the minority that deny the legitimacy of the State to govern, then the democratic wishes of the majority of people- to remain within the United Kingdom- are undermined via the backdoor. 

Once you accept the principle of parity of esteem, then the logical trajectory of such a process is joint-authority. If one accepts (which I never have) that there should be parity between expressions of sovereign Britishness and the minority aspiration of Irish unity, then it is only logical to conclude that both the Irish government and the British Government should govern Northern Ireland, in order to provide ultimate ‘parity of esteem’. This would be entirely unacceptable to the Unionist population.

Such a neutralising of sovereign identity is another staging post along the road to economic, cultural, security and governing harmonisation between North/South- a key strategic aim underpinning the political objective of obtaining Irish unification. 

‘Parity of esteem’ is a linguistic method of dressing up political aims, in the language of civil rights. The reality is that it is a political weapon used to further the political aim of those who seek to deny the democratic right of the elected Government of the United Kingdom to govern. It is not people that will be granted ‘parity of esteem’, but rather a political aspiration. It is important to make a distinction between the rights of each individual to be treated equally under the law, and held equally subject to the law, and the false claim that minority, or foreign,political symbols and identity should be afforded parity with the sovereign symbols and identity of the majority, who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. If we follow, once again, the ‘parity of esteem’ logic, then why are other minority political aspirations not also afforded equal parity? 

Individuals have the right to hold and express their political opinion freely, even if such opinions do not recognise the right of the state to govern. Individuals or groups should not be discriminated against for holding such views; however they do not have the right to have such views formally recognised by the state or for their political denial of the same states legitimacy to govern, to be held equally alongside the democratic wishes of the majority. 

If British citizens are to have their democratic will of sovereignty held, by the state, in equivalence with the wishes of a minority that seek to deny such British citizenship, then that is an erosion of the democratic wishes of the majority, and as such undermines the very principle of democracy. 

All of the above works from the Nationalist viewpoint of the Belfast Agreement. Sinn Fein’s submission to the Haass talks in 2013 sought to refer to the Agreement as providing a duty of “Equality of treatment” on Public bodies. This, naturally, provides Nationalism with a spring board upon which to argue that cultural and sovereign expressions of Irishness should be held in parity with Britishness. 

The context of their submission on this point was an attempt to place a duty on Public bodies to adopt a policy of flying either the British and Irish flag, or no flags at all. This perverse suggestion should be utterly rejected. There cannot be parity, within the lawful territory of the United Kingdom, between the sovereign Union flag and any foreign flag. Whilst the “Equality or Neutrality” point was raised in relation to public bodies, it does shine a light upon the much wider strategy of Nationalism, designed to undermine every vestige of British culture and tradition within Northern Ireland. 

This is, of course, is one of the key flaws in the Belfast Agreement. It is so ambiguous on such matters, that it allows Nationalism to use the Agreement- which was sold as a ‘settlement’ to Unionism- as a Trojan horse process, upon which they can piggy-back towards Irish unity. A key part of this strategy is neutralising the sovereign cultural expressions, and campaigning for what is, in their mind, positive discrimination against the British majority within Northern Ireland. 

The Trojan horse targeting sovereignty, by the back door, is disguised under the aforementioned Sinn Fein policy of “equality or neutrality”. This is a carefully laid trap, designed to move Unionism and statutory bodies into an area whereby whatever decision is taken, it will undermine the prominence of the sovereign expressions of the majority. There is no duty on the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom to dilute, nor give official recognition to, the symbols of a foreign jurisdiction- which is now further separated by an EU land border. 

The issues arising from Brexit do much to undermine the Belfast Agreement and the parity of esteem argument, which is so cherished by Nationalism. Once Brexit finally officially takes place, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which are already separate jurisdictions, will be separated by an EU land border. Therefore it is impossible that Irish citizens of Northern Ireland, which is outside the EU, can have the same rights as Irish citizens within the Republic of Ireland, which remains within the EU. This drives a horse and cart through the ambiguous areas of the Belfast Agreement that Nationalism base their “equality or neutrality” strategy upon.

Strategic legal victory for Bangor Protestant Boys 

The prosecution of four members of the Bangor Protestant Boys Flute Band, of which I am a member, is a sad indictment on the system and indeed further reflects the continuing attempts by the Policing and Justice apparatus to criminalise, and neutralise, expressions of culture.

The core trajectory of the failed Belfast Agreement pivots on the contrived notion of ‘harmonisation’. This, in essence, is the key of Nationalism’s strategy. It is dressed up under the guise of equality, which is, in Gerry Adam’s own words, the ‘trojan horse’. Harmonisation relies upon social, economic and cultural neutralisation.

For this strategy to be effective, and the peace ‘process’ to follow its pre-disposed roadmap towards Irish Unification- whether constitutionally or via the back-door of all-Ireland harmonisation- culture must be neutralised and neutered. Therefore it is no surprise to see that the PSNI and Public Prosecution Service- which was surrendered under the table at the Hillsborough agreement talks- are acting as the enforcement arm of this strategy, and as such criminalising all aspects of Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist cultural expression.  

Our band came under investigation following a conscious decision to breach an unjust and oppressive Parades Commission determination. Our band respectfully decided to play a hymn passing St Patrick’s chapel on Donegall Street. This is a decision that the band fully stands over.

The PSNI initially sought to prosecute almost every member of the band, working under a ‘joint-enterprise’ rule whereby they sought to present the entire band as one structure and therefore each and every band member could have been prosecuted for the actions of the band corporately.

The band took a conscious decision to target this particular aspect of the PSNI case, knowing full well that a successful outcome could severely undermine future PSNI attempts to criminalise bands corporately.

Prior to this, the band also decided to expose the fatal flaws in the legislative framework of the Public Processions Act. By initially refusing to voluntarily attend for interview, the band forced an admission from the PSNI that they have no powers of arrest under the Public Processions Act; therefore there was precious little they could do if a band member refused to engage.

Once this aspect was proven, much to the consternation of a humiliated PSNI investigating team, the band then decided to present for interview with a pre-prepared outline of our defence. This defence was based on the assertion that rather than being one corporate entity, the band was instead compartmentalised and accordingly different sections of the band had no idea what duties other sections were to perform.

For example the flag carriers had no knowledge of what tunes the flute section would play, the drummers acted on the instruction of the lead tip- the role of which revolved constantly amongst the drummers- and the flute players acted on the calls of the band captain, which rotated throughout the parade.

This strategic test of the PSNI’s case proved effective in undermining their malice, as their attempted mass prosecution buckled due to the fact that they could not adduce sufficient proof as to who knew what, when they knew and who bore responsibility. With each compartment of the band reliant upon another and this structure constantly rotating, then it is much harder for the PSNI/PPS to prove beyond all reasonable doubt culpability or knowledge.

As such, the PSNI were only able to prosecute four members of the band, all of whom played flutes. The band members had refused to omit from their pre-prepared PSNI statements that they had consciously broken the determination, a mark of their pride in the actions of the band. Had such an admission not been included, then it is quite conceivable that the PSNI would not even have succeeded in prosecuting four band members.

The strategy of compartmentalising the band, and rotating responsibility of roles and actions, presents the PSNI with a serious evidential problem for any future cases. Despite the fact that four unfortunate members of the band had to accept a fine in this matter, it was an important strategic victory over the PSNI and PPS, and it is hoped that such defence strategies can be refined and utilised further and in the future thwart further malicious prosecutorial attempts to criminalise culture and religious freedom. 
 

Politics, Deal Making and Illegality- Adair/Kearney’s sweetheart deals #NAMA 

  
One aspect of the unfolding Nama scandal that was not afforded due attention, was the then DUP Finance Minister’s attempt to have former Anglo-Irish bank boss Neil Adair appointed to the Nama Northern Ireland advisory panel. 

The fact that Sammy Wilson had tried to appoint Mr Adair only became apparent when previously redacted Department of Finance papers were provided to the Departments scrutiny committee who were investigating the Nama scandal. 

In 2006 Neil Adair left the Anglo-Irish bank and teamed up Paddy Kearney. The pair, along with another man, Brian McConville, formed a company called PBM Ltd, which would later become Kilmona holdings. 

In a media interview given at this time Mr Adair stated “I’ve always seen myself as a deal-maker first and banker second.” 

As Adair, Kearney and McConville embarked on numerous business ventures together, they were funded by the Anglo-Irish bank to the tune of £260m. 

Confidential reports from the following years however show that the company were becoming “hopelessly insolvent” and were unable to pay their interest. 

By 2009 the company had debts of circa £317m. Over £200m of these debts would later be written off, after lobbying by then First Minister Peter Robinson, and Mr Kearney eventually received a sweetheart deal from Cerberus, in which he not only had millions of pounds written off but he was also permitted to purchase the assets of developers who were in far less debt than Mr Kearney. 

The favourable treatment of Mr Kearney by Cerberus must be viewed in the context that the Finance Minister Sammy Wilson sought to put Kearney’s business partner, Neil Adair, onto the Nama advisory panel in 2009. 

Mr Adair had worked alongside Mr Kearney as he accrued the enormous debts that followed him into Nama following the collapse of the Anglo-Irish Bank. 

Questions have been raised about why Mr Sammy Wilson sought to appoint Neil Adair and what due diligence was carried out prior to this proposed appointment, given the fact that Mr Adair’s business partner was a huge debtor in Nama. 

Following Paddy Kearney’s sweetheart deal from Cerberus, the then First Minister Peter Robinson attended a celebratory dinner in Carrickfergus. 

As part of this sweetheart deal, Mr Kearney had to refinance his loans through Jeffries loan core. 

One of the companies controlled by Paddy Kearney was previously owned by a man who will be referred to here as ‘GB’. 

This gentleman had assets of circa £90m but during the crash the value of these assets fell and the business began to fall into troubled waters. 

The Anglo-Irish bank approached ‘GB’ and informed him he would be going into administration- unless the sold 50% of his company to their former employees business partner, Paddy Kearney. 

Left with little option ‘GB’ agreed to this deal, but upon closing the deal he was informed that Kearney wanted 70% of his company. Anglo told him he had no choice but to agree to sell it for £1. 

Once these debts found their way into Cerberus they had to be refinanced as part of the package agreed with Jeffries Loan Core. The sticking point was that ‘GB’s’ company had to be owned 100% by Mr Kearney.

It is understood that individuals acting for Mr Kearney falsified ‘GB’s’ power of attorney, which was then witnessed by Tughans, and signed over- illegally- 100% of the company to Paddy Kearney. 

It was such deals that Mr Robinson celebrated when he attended the party hosted by Paddy Kearney in Carrickfergus following his sweetheart refinancing deal.