James Reilly ignored court order to pay 1.9million bank debt

Biggins · 11-07-2012 12:57PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:01PM

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

Robbo · 11-07-2012 01:05PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:06PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:06PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:07PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:09PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:09PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:11PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:14PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:14PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:15PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:19PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:22PM

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

Chips Lovell · 11-07-2012 01:23PM

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

Ghandee · 11-07-2012 01:26PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:28PM

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

Robbo · 11-07-2012 01:28PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:29PM

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 · 11-07-2012 01:32PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Conflict of interest he must now resign

AN IRISH POLITICIAN RESIGN? You're gas!

Robbo · 11-07-2012 01:32PM

Biggins wrote: »

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.

Please do enlighten me how the Offences Against the State Act covers regular contempt of court. Use diagrams where necessary.

Stiffler2 · 11-07-2012 01:33PM

Right - I think I've figured this all out, here's what happening.

FG have hired employee's to search through boards and stick up for the corrupt leaders instead of sticking up for the Irish people themselves.

Either that or every Irish person here sticking up for these "corrupt leaders" is a troll

ahnowbrowncow · 11-07-2012 01:33PM

Robbo wrote: »

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.

I knew it. Get em boys

Chips Lovell · 11-07-2012 01:34PM

Biggins wrote: »

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.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you arguing that Reilly should have paid the whole €1.9 million even though he's only one member of the consortium? Is this what you'd have done yourself Biggins?

seamus · 11-07-2012 01:37PM

Biggins wrote: »

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.

Exactly. The group as a whole is liable for the whole debt. There are no individual debts.

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.

That's just factually incorrect I'm afraid Biggins. No one member can discharge their debt without the agreement of the rest of the group. Even if Reilly paid his share in full (to who, the court?) but nobody else did, Reilly would still be listed in Stubbs.
If the entire debt is not cleared, the consortium is in default. You're hardly saying that Reilly should have paid the whole €1.9m himself?

So, bearing in mind that there is no mechanism by which Reilly could have paid his "share" to extricate himself from the consortium - what would you have done Biggins?

Ghandee · 11-07-2012 01:37PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Right - I think I've figured this all out, here's what happening.

FG have hired employee's to search through boards and stick up for the corrupt leaders instead of sticking up for the Irish people themselves.

Either that or every Irish person here sticking up for these "corrupt leaders" is a troll

Theirs always option C.

Public service workers who fear the downfall of the current govt, the introduction of a new govt who will (unbelievably for Irish politics) honour their pre-election promises, and slash numbers, bloated salaries etc.

Or in lay mans terms. Take away the gravy.

daddydick · 11-07-2012 01:38PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Right - I think I've figured this all out, here's what happening.

FG have hired employee's to search through boards and stick up for the corrupt leaders instead of sticking up for the Irish people themselves.

Either that or every Irish person here sticking up for these "corrupt leaders" is a troll

Or how about the real problem in this country - the apparent lack of education.

Seamie is the one man talking sense on this thing.

Stiffler2 · 11-07-2012 01:40PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

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

The only think Seamus is bringing to the table here is treason

Good man Seamus - let's keep these guys in power :rolleyes:

Robbo · 11-07-2012 01:40PM

Ghandee wrote: »

Theirs always option C.

Public service workers who fear the downfall of the current govt, the introduction of a new govt who will (unbelievably for Irish politics) honour their pre-election promises, and slash numbers, bloated salaries etc.

Or in lay mans terms. Take away the gravy.

I suppose, were I not working in the private sector, my function here could be seen as some kind of remedial Junior Cert CSPE tutor, albeit in an unpaid capacity...

Chips Lovell · 11-07-2012 01:41PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

The only think Seamus is bringing to the table here is treason

Good man Seamus - let's keep these guys in power :rolleyes:

Treason?!:eek: LOL, yes. "Death to Seamus the traitor".

James Reilly ignored court order to pay 1.9million bank debt

Comments