James Reilly ignored court order to pay 1.9million bank debt

Stiffler2

Politician of FG
Minister of Health
Head of the HSE

owed 1.9 million on property he owns, was asked by court order to pay it, he didn't. His name is now in Stubbs Gazette.

These F***kers are part of the same gobberment that wants me & you to fork over more tax to pay bank debt.

Bank debt which he owes 1.9 million on, yet they expect us to pay more taxes to pay for their losses

He's a minister FFS

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0710/james-reilly-debt-default.html

whole country stinks

Biggins

...But...but Enda says his finances are in order!

So it must be true!

Good old Enda wouldn't stand-up in the Dail and to the nation and publicly lie would he?

Stiffler2

Biggins wrote: »

...But...but Enda says his finances are in order!

So it must be true!

Good old Enda wouldn't stand-up in the Dail and to the nation and publicly lie would he?

Yeah - I always believe what Monty says.
This on top of James Reilly not paying some form of tax on his mansion "because it's old"

FFS - Total bs

http://www.thejournal.ie/minister-and-wife-claim-tax-breaks-on-13-bed-moneygall-mansion-127346-Apr2011/

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0615/1224317984167.html

Not only that but he's renting it out as well, he's not even f***ing living in it

jdooley28

This place would f**kin depress ya

Vico1612

Enda said that JR does'nt owe any money and that he's been mistaken with the real culprit, Father Fintan Stack

mikom

This just in from James Reilly........ Quote

daddydick

Lads can ye relax. Where does it say that he ignored a court order? It is quiet clear that there was delays in the drawing down of the mortgage and some other issues and it has been confirmed that the issues are now resolved and the money will be paid.

OP you know nothing about the transaction and your post is extremely ill-informed. He does not owe 1.9m, he is part of a consortium of 5 who owe 1.9m and by the looks of it he is not going to default.

Storm in a tea-cup.

Stiffler2

mikom wrote: »

This just in from James Reilly........ Quote

Oh Mikom - I never made that correlation, that is F***ing gas

policarp

He was trying to start up his own health service by being ignorant
of the laws of the land. . .

seamus

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good anti-gubberment rant there lads.

Who needs to know what really happened when you can just have a good whinge about taxes and bank debt?

rabble rabble rabble

Robbo

In before "de bondholders".

Stiffler2

facts, schmacts.
It's all your fault anyway, all of this ^^^

Biggins

daddydick wrote: »

Lads can ye relax. Where does it say that he ignored a court order?

Aaa... like here?

...Dr Reilly had serious questions to answer as to why he did not honour a High Court order.

“Last February Judge Kelly made an order giving until the end of April to pay that. It is a serious issue when a government minister would not be in compliance with a High Court order,”

LINK.

The paper even names the judge that issued the order and the date he was supposed to have paid by!
That good enough?

I suspect not!

Mr Kenny also stood by the Fine Gael deputy leader, claiming his business interests are "entirely in order", even though Dr Reilly has yet to comply with a High Court order to pay the debt.

Stiffler2

Biggins wrote: »

Aaa... like here?


LINK.

The paper even names the judge that issued the order and the date he was supposed to have paid by!
That good enough?

I suspect not!

Good man Biggins..

robbo, seamus -> in your face !!

SEPT 23 1989

Conflict of interest he must now resign

Ghandee

daddydick wrote: »

Lads can ye relax. Where does it say that he ignored a court order? It is quiet clear that there was delays in the drawing down of the mortgage and some other issues and it has been confirmed that the issues are now resolved and the money will be paid.

OP you know nothing about the transaction and your post is extremely ill-informed. He does not owe 1.9m, he is part of a consortium of 5 who owe 1.9m and by the looks of it he is not going to default.

Storm in a tea-cup.

At the minute he is a defaulter though. As he has defaulted.

You can polish a turd and all that......

Stiffler2

daddydick wrote: »

Lads can ye relax. Where does it say that he ignored a court order? It is quiet clear that there was delays in the drawing down of the mortgage and some other issues and it has been confirmed that the issues are now resolved and the money will be paid.

OP you know nothing about the transaction and your post is extremely ill-informed. He does not owe 1.9m, he is part of a consortium of 5 who owe 1.9m and by the looks of it he is not going to default.

Storm in a tea-cup.

Yes - i'm aware he's in a consortium of 5 who owe the debt.
Storm in a tea-cup - only because he got caught, he was trying to get away with it. he's only sorry his name appeared in the paper

Biggins

Seeing as Mr Reilly was one of the men that backed Enda to keep him as head of the Party when an over throw was attempted previously, I suspect these lads are looking out for each other - yet again.

Whats that single word again that we used to say about Fianna Fail?
O' yea, possible more "cronyism?"

EMBATTLED Health Minister Dr James Reilly will make a statement to the Dail at 10pm tonight on his listing as a debt defaulter.

Strange though too that Mr Reilly is allowed without hassle, to make a statement ot the Dail but as one TD found out just weeks ago when he wanted to make a statemnt to the Dail about his finances, he was stopped!

MORE double standards. One rule for others, another just for the government TD's!

seamus

I'm not writing it out again:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79660683&postcount=14

For those too lazy to click a link, long before he even ran for the Dail, he invested in a nursing home as part of a consortium which was due to buy out the entire home. Something went wrong and the consortium could no longer cover the purchase. There is no option on Dr. Reilly's part to buy out or exit the consortium as the entire debt must be paid in one go.

When he became Minister for Health, he shed all possible conflicts of interest, but had no feasible way of getting out of this one. So on the recommendation of the body who looks after conflicts, he gave his solicitor full control of the matter.

The consortium as a whole had failed to meet the deadline date for payment, but will according to him, still pay the debt in full.

It's a total non-story, he's done nothing morally or ethically wrong and there's no evidence of any kind that he's been trying to keep this hidden or avoid his obligations.

The opposition knew about this investment when he was appointed Minister for Health. Funny they didn't make a stink about it then.

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

...The opposition knew about this investment when he was appointed Minister for Health. Funny they didn't make a stink about it then.

Did they?
Can you confirm this? Link?
Also he was not a defaulter at that stage either.

For Kenny to stand up and say that O'Reillys business interests are "entirely in order" is taking the piss - but then we're taking about Kenny anyway, whats new!

seamus

Biggins wrote: »

Did they?
Can you confirm this? Link?

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

Register of Member's interests, 2011.

(7) Green Hills Nursing Home, Carrick on Suir, Tipperary: ¼ share: care of the elderly: interest transferred to blind trust as per SIPO advice;

Totally wide open and 100% declared. But suddenly now it's a conflict of interests when it serves FF & SF to make it so.

Also he was not a defaulter at that stage either.

So? Does being a "defaulter" make him diseased or something?

R P McMurphy

Biggins wrote: »

Did they?
Can you confirm this? Link?
Also he was not a defaulter at that stage either.

For Kenny to stand up and say that O'Reillys business interests are "entirely in order" is taking the piss - but then we're taking about Kenny anyway, whats new!

That is the point, the other issues being raised are side issues. He did not comply with a high court order and as such should be unfit to hold public office. The standards for public office are set so low in this country it makes you wonder what it would actually take for someone to resign or be removed. It is definitely not a non-issue

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

Register of Member's interests, 2011.

Appreciate the link.
So knowing his future possible debt - he still passed the buck with further non-action and non-complied with a court order!

seamus wrote: »

So? Does being a "defaulter" make him diseased or something?

No - just a person that has legally broken a state court order.
When you and I do that, we are probably deemed criminals and arrest warrants are usually issued so a judge can drag our ass back into court to find out whats going on!

Has any of this has happened in the case of O'Reilly!

Stiffler2

seamus wrote: »

I'm not writing it out again:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79660683&postcount=14

For those too lazy to click a link, long before he even ran for the Dail, he invested in a nursing home as part of a consortium which was due to buy out the entire home. Something went wrong and the consortium could no longer cover the purchase. There is no option on Dr. Reilly's part to buy out or exit the consortium as the entire debt must be paid in one go.

When he became Minister for Health, he shed all possible conflicts of interest, but had no feasible way of getting out of this one. So on the recommendation of the body who looks after conflicts, he gave his solicitor full control of the matter.

The consortium as a whole had failed to meet the deadline date for payment, but will according to him, still pay the debt in full.

It's a total non-story, he's done nothing morally or ethically wrong and there's no evidence of any kind that he's been trying to keep this hidden or avoid his obligations.

The opposition knew about this investment when he was appointed Minister for Health. Funny they didn't make a stink about it then.

Yes Seamus I also heard that he gave full control of the matter to his solicitor which stinks of even more bs.

Does this mean I can go out, borrow 2 million, spend it, give control of the matter to my solicitor and walk away from my debts ?

Why is it Irish people support corrupt leaders, I do not understand this or is everyone that sticks up for these people trolls looking for an arguement ??

Biggins

A fellow commenter after the Indo article also puts the situation like this:

Surely the really scary issue here isn't about debt defaulting but that our Minster for Health has a massive unacceptable conflict of interest. This is indisputable, he as a private speculator, invested in nursing homes, stands to gain considerable personal profit from the very policy decisions he is charge of in the department of health. This could only be allowed to happen in a banana republic. Surely he must either resign his position or sell his interest, forfeiting any profit made while in office.

LINK

Now he DID NOT make profit while in office but had his business stayed successful in this case, after he left as a TD, the profit would be there eventually for him to gain - possibly helped by created decisions while in office!

...the conflict remains so long as the business interest and ultimate benefit exists.

Ghost Buster

He is an Irish politician and is above what is expected of lesser individuals in our unique class system. That is all. Live with it.

mikom

seamus wrote: »

So? Does being a "defaulter" make him diseased or something?

Not diseased.......... but he may have to get a tattoo

"We are not going to have the name defaulter written across our foreheads." Enda Kenny in the Dail (24th january2012)

Valetta

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Does this mean I can go out, borrow 2 million, spend it, give control of the matter to my solicitor and walk away from my debts ?

He didn't borrow any money.

Biggins

Thank you Mikom, thats the very words from Kenny I was looking for, which I knew Kenny stated.

...But of course, as its now one of his own - well that all different.

A man that was/is closing state homes - yet had a business interest in private homes where some of those kicked out of the state homes, night have ended up in without choice and force to further pay-up more!

...And some can't see a clear conflict of interest? Amazing blindness!

The fact is that he should NOT have been given the office he holds from the very beginning.
More stupidity from Enda.
(Besides the double-standards, being a coward and a liar!)

seamus

Biggins wrote: »

So knowing his future possible debt - he still passed the buck with further non-action and non-complied with a court order!

This sentence makes no sense. He "passed the buck" because he had no other option. "Knowing" his future possible debt is irrelevant.

No - just a person that has legally broken a state court order.
When you and I do that, we are probably deemed criminals and arrest warrants are usually issued so a judge can drag our ass back into court to find out whats going on!

He had a judgement registered against him. I think you're getting confused about what it means.

If this happened to you or me, our names would appear in Stubbs' just the same. There would be no summons or arrests. That's just nonsense.

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Yes Seamus I also heard that he gave full control of the matter to his solicitor which stinks of even more bs.

Does this mean I can go out, borrow 2 million, spend it, give control of the matter to my solicitor and walk away from my debts ?

Like I said, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

You have no evidence that he has "walked away" from anything. Failure to pay by a specific date doesn't mean that it won't be paid. Maybe give the guy a chance to explain his side before you judge him. You know, the same rights that you would demand you be given?

Biggins wrote: »

Now he DID NOT make profit while in office but had his business stayed successful in this case, after he left as a TD, the profit would be there eventually for him to gain - possibly helped by created decisions while in office!

If things had been different, he would have sold his share when he became Minister. That's the point; he was unable to sell his share or buy himself out of the business.

Nobody here has yet pointed out where the Minister has done anything morally, ethicall or legally wrong.
He had a judgement registered against him because he was part of a consortium that failed to pay a debt by a deadline. Until we have more information, that alone isn't enough to declare that he's in the wrong.
Otherwise you may as well declare that everyone who's in arrears on their mortgage is just a shyster trying to avoid paying their debts.

The hypocrasy in this thread...

ballsymchugh

seamus wrote: »

I'm not writing it out again:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79660683&postcount=14

For those too lazy to click a link, long before he even ran for the Dail, he invested in a nursing home as part of a consortium which was due to buy out the entire home. Something went wrong and the consortium could no longer cover the purchase. There is no option on Dr. Reilly's part to buy out or exit the consortium as the entire debt must be paid in one go.

When he became Minister for Health, he shed all possible conflicts of interest, but had no feasible way of getting out of this one. So on the recommendation of the body who looks after conflicts, he gave his solicitor full control of the matter.

The consortium as a whole had failed to meet the deadline date for payment, but will according to him, still pay the debt in full.

It's a total non-story, he's done nothing morally or ethically wrong and there's no evidence of any kind that he's been trying to keep this hidden or avoid his obligations.

The opposition knew about this investment when he was appointed Minister for Health. Funny they didn't make a stink about it then.

can i just add, he's not the head of the HSE. small point, but the OP was wrong to say that.

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

This sentence makes no sense. He "passed the buck" because he had no other option. "Knowing" his future possible debt is irrelevant.
He had a judgement registered against him. I think you're getting confused about what it means.

Although his business was in trust, the bills/debts was accumulating.
It was his business to see that his legal team was at least resolving the issue.
Just because something is in trust, does not absolve a person from paying their debts!

If that was the case, I would put my bank accounts in similar every time a big ESB bill or gas bill came though my door!

seamus wrote: »

If this happened to you or me, our names would appear in Stubbs' just the same. There would be no summons or arrests. That's just nonsense.

Again, really?

(b) if the defaulter, on being so required to enter into such recognisance, does not comply with such requirement, such Justice may, if he so thinks proper, direct the defaulter to be detained in custody and brought before such Justice on the said specified day unless he is previously released from custody in pursuance of this section;

(c) if while the defaulter is so in custody either—

(i) he enters into a recognisance before a peace commissioner with sureties to the satisfaction of such peace commissioner to appear before such Justice on the said specified day if the said amount is not previously discharged as a result of such levy or otherwise, or

(ii) the said amount is discharged in full either as a result of such levy or otherwise,

the defaulter shall be released from custody forthwith;

(d) if upon the said specified day the said amount has not been discharged in full either as a result of such levy or otherwise, such Justice may, unless the defaulter shows to the satisfaction of such Justice that the failure to discharge the said amount was due neither to his wilful refusal nor to his culpable neglect, sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months.

Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1940
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1940/en/act/pub/0023/print.html

Failure to pay by a specific date doesn't mean that it won't be paid.

Failure to ordered pay means that he should have looked into the matter and got it sorted.
He didn't.

Maybe give the guy a chance to explain his side before you judge him.

He has between the time of the court order until the end of April to do this.
He didn't.

Would the rest of us be looked upon so conveniently by a court that a court system would just hang around this long and do nothing?
I suspect not!

Chips Lovell

@Biggins. What would you have done if you were in Reilly's shoes?

Robbo

Biggins wrote: »

Although his business was in trust, the bills/debts was accumulating.
It was his business to see that his legal team was at least resolving the issue.
Just because something is in trust, does not absolve a person from paying their debts!

If that was the case, I would put my bank accounts in similar every time a big ESB bill or gas bill came though my door!



Again, really?



Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1940
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1940/en/act/pub/0023/print.html



Failure to ordered pay means that he should have looked into the matter and got it sorted.
He didn't.

He has between the time of the court order until the end of April to do this.
He didn't.

Would the rest of us be looked upon so conveniently by a court that a court system would just hang around this long and do nothing?
I suspect not!

I fail to see how your expert copypasta of the section in relation to the section of the Act in relation to sums payable by virtue of an order made under section 1 of the Married Women (Maintenance in case of Desertion) Act, 1886, or under section 3 of the Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Act, 1930 comes into it.

Maybe Reilly has some serious skeletons in his closest with deserting women and making illegitimate kids or you just can't trust the first result in Google as sound legal advice. Who knows?

It's also a complete red herring in this instance as well, as the judgment was registered this week. No order for committal has been sought.

seamus

Biggins wrote: »

Although his business was in trust, the bills/debts was accumulating.
It was his business to see that his legal team was at least resolving the issue.
Just because something is in trust, does not absolve a person from paying their debts!

If that was the case, I would put my bank accounts in similar every time a big ESB bill or gas bill came though my door!

Look up what a "blind trust" is.

It was not his business to check that anyone was resolving the issue because he had given them complete authority to act on his behalf without involving him. He probably did know what was going on, but was in fact incapable of doing anything about it. All he can do is watch it play out.

You've still failed to show evidence that he was trying to escape his debts or that Minister Reilly has personally avoided paying this debt.

Again, really?
Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1940
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1940/en/act/pub/0023/print.html

Aw, Biggins, I'm disappointed. The section you quote refers only to maintenance payments for single or separated mothers. Did you read the legislation or just search for the word "default"?

He has between the time of the court order until the end of April to do this.
He didn't.

To do what? Explain that he has a debt to pay? Should members of the Dail be required to stand up in front of the Dail if they're two weeks behind on their phone bill too?

He had no legal power to "sort" this issue. All claims that he should have "sorted" it are irrelevant. From his point of view all he can do is wait for the consortium to come to an agreement and then write a cheque. He can't just write a cheque and be done with it.

@Biggins. What would you have done if you were in Reilly's shoes?

I would ask the same question of anyone in this thread who's declared Reilly as a debt-shy criminal without even knowing the full story.

mikom

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

@Biggins. What would you have done if you were in Reilly's shoes?

Drilled holes in the wall whilst listening to jungle music possibly....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9-pLuDSTbc

Biggins

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

@Biggins. What would you have done if you were in Reilly's shoes?

I would have at least asked my legal team to make representations on my behalf (while explaining about the reason for the position of a trust) to see that finances was made available as outgoings (and not profitable incoming income) towards my share of the debt.

I would have at least asked my legal team to make representations on my behalf, to a court, to explain any possible delay as to why I have not coughed up.

Thats just for a start. I sure there is more that I could do.

jhegarty

Biggins wrote: »

I would have at least asked my legal team to make representations on my behalf (while explaining about the reason for the position of a trust) to see that finances was made available as outgoings (and not profitable incoming income) towards my share of the debt.

I would have at least asked my legal team to make representations on my behalf, to a court, to explain any possible delay as to why I have not coughed up.

Thats just for a start. I sure there is more that I could do.

But it's a joint debt.

He doesn't have a "share" that can be paid.

seamus

Biggins wrote: »

I would have at least asked my legal team to make representations on my behalf (while explaining about the reason for the position of a trust) to see that finances was made available as outgoings (and not profitable incoming income) towards my share of the debt.

I would have at least asked my legal team to make representations on my behalf, to a court, to explain any possible delay as to why I have not coughed up.

Reilly had no power to do any of that as he had transferred those powers to someone else on the recommendation of the SIPO, specifically to avoid a conflict of interest.

And it's not possible for him to contribute his "share" of the debt independently of the other investors. For all you know, Reilly has his share sitting in an account earmarked for payment but he has to wait for everyone else to get their things together.

Try again, what would you have done?

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

LAw, Biggins, I'm disappointed. The section you quote refers only to maintenance payments for single or separated mothers. Did you read the legislation or just search for the word "default"?

The section does indeed refer to single or separated mothers but then if you knew the legal system as I do, you would know that its upon such acts that further precedents are set and enacted by other presiding judges, when a decision of action is called for.
They refer also back to earlier judgements and such laws for guidance and the legalities of that which they wish to enforce. The law.
Its done daily.

You've still failed to show evidence that he was trying to escape his debts or that Minister Reilly has personally avoided paying this debt.

Mr Reilly has clearly failed to show a court his willingness to pay!

seamus

Biggins wrote: »

The section does indeed refer to single or separated mothers but then if you knew the legal system as I do, you would know that its upon such acts that further precedent are set and enacted by other presiding judges, when a decision of action is called for.
They refer back to earlier judgements for guidance and the legalities of that which they wish to enforce. The law.
Its done daily.

That's a pretty weak attempt to back out of a failed copy-and-paste. Judgements under completely different laws aren't use as precedents. This wasn't a court order for payment, it was a judgement, it's an entirely different process.

Mr Reilly has clearly failed to show a court his willingness to pay!

No, he hasn't. Where is your evidence that Reilly has not been willing to pay his portion of the debt? As has been explained to you a number of times now, he's unable to independently pay this debt, the group as a whole have to pay it.

Biggins

jhegarty wrote: »

But it's a joint debt.

He doesn't have a "share" that can be paid.

Indeed not, he's liable for the whole thing.
Not even a share of the debt was tried paid by him or his legal team though.

Nothing, The court order was just not complied with.
He's a legal defaulter.

Robbo

Biggins wrote: »

The section does indeed refer to single or separated mothers but then if you knew the legal system as I do, you would know that its upon such acts that further precedents are set and enacted by other presiding judges, when a decision of action is called for.
They refer also back to earlier judgements and such laws for guidance and the legalities of that which they wish to enforce. The law.

That is easily the most misguided interpretation of the common law system I've seen outside of a Freeman on the Land argument.

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

...the group as a whole have to pay it.

No, as it stands, even if most of the group paid, if one defaulted, those that might have already (or not) contributed, would still be liable for the whole debt.

The groups as such doesn't have to pay as whole. An individual can - if they have the financial means to.

If they don't - they are a defaulter.

Ghandee

The amount of pro-government shills, (a good portion of which are mods) on these threads its truly sickening.

Chips Lovell

That's right. If you don't like the arguments being made, resort to name calling.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's right. If you don't like the arguments being made, resort to name calling.

When asked for facts, provided with facts, and still in denial, one can only assume the obvious.

Chips Lovell

To be honest, the only one who seems to have made any effort to bring any facts to the table here is Seamus.

Robbo

Ghandee wrote: »

The amount of pro-government shills, (a good portion of which are mods) on these threads its truly sickening.

As part of my pay package from FG headquarters, routed through Boards HQ, I get to default on all my debts to deserted wives and bastard children. It's quite the perk. All I'm asked for in exchange is park my view that a Minister is compromised ethically and rag on the true crusaders for justice and their learned views on the law.

And I would have got away with it if it wasn't for your expert sleuthing.

Biggins

Robbo wrote: »

That is easily the most misguided interpretation of the common law system I've seen outside of a Freeman on the Land argument.

Thats your opinion - fair enough but the fact still remains in spite of this that Mr O'Reilly has NOT (if its his fault or not) obeyed a court order.

When a person does this though a lack of action on their part or by others acting in their name, they are in 'contempt of court' - and the consequences for that are many things including being arrest under the Offences Against The State Act 1939.

paul4green

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Conflict of interest he must now resign

AN IRISH POLITICIAN RESIGN? You're gas!