James Reilly ignored court order to pay 1.9million bank debt

seamus · 11-07-2012 01:45PM

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:

You're pretty scattered, aren't you? Treason = Not trying to overthrow a democratic government.

Sound logic there. Seems to be a recurring theme across your posts.

Stiffler2 · 11-07-2012 01:48PM

With people like Vladmir Curtains & Seamus I don't think we'll ever see progress in Ireland, we'll just see the same corrupt leaders one after another taking the piss, knowing there are no consequences for their actions while the Irish roll over once more.

Any other country, James would be finished, simple as that.

and mods on boards are all lawyers as well, didn't everyone here already know that ??

it's judgement gone mad

Biggins · 11-07-2012 01:53PM

Robbo wrote: »

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

Let me educate you then - no graphs needed:

A court such as the one O'Reilly has ignored be it his fault or not, under the Offences Against the State Act (for his non-compliance with a state court order) has the power to issue an order of

(a) prohibition, to prevent a person or a group from exercising a power it does not legally have;
(Not applicable I think in this case)

(b) Mandamus, to compel a person or group, to carry out a legal duty.
(THIS DOES APPLY)

(c) Certiorari, to stop a person or group who has exceeded their legal powers.
(Not applicable I think in this case)

(d) Habeas Corpus (one I'm sure some have all heard of but wondering what the hell it is!), to require a person with his possible detainer to attend before a high court to explain the circumstances of, and justification for possible detention.
(Not applicable I think in this case)

Apart from the four methods of trial (summary trial, trial by jury, trial by military court and special courts), enumerated in the constitution, the courts assume the power to punish ANY act which plainly tends to create a disregard for the authority of the courts.
Contempt 'in facie curaie' in the face of the court is punishable by the court before which the offence is committed.
If you want to argue the law, we can get right down to the nitty-gritty.
Its what I have studied and partly qualified in for some years.

Some of the above does apply to Mr O'Reilly and his cohorts, some don't, but the fact remains that he has broken a court order, is a defaulter and it flies in the clear face of what Enda Kenny has stated previously!
End of story - despite how others might spin it otherwise.

Biggins · 11-07-2012 02:00PM

seamus wrote: »

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

Again - wrong:

Treacy described the judgement by the Commercial Court as “exotic” saying that the way it was structured meant that all five members of the partnership are joint and separately liable for the full amount is due.

http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-james-reilly-nursing-home-debt-defaulters-health-dail-515954-Jul2012/

Stiffler2 · 11-07-2012 02:02PM

Biggins - I think Seamus & Vladimir have run back to their corner crying now.
either that or their FG spin team are trying to find holes in your post

jolly good show

Dave! · 11-07-2012 02:04PM

Biggins wrote: »

Again - wrong:

http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-james-reilly-nursing-home-debt-defaulters-health-dail-515954-Jul2012/

Doesn't that mean that they're all jointly and individually liable for the total amount due, not for their own individual portions? Which is what was already pointed out.

Therefore as seamus mentioned, he could pay the whole 1+ million if he wanted. Are you suggesting that he should?

My name is URL · 11-07-2012 02:05PM

Whatever about the legalities etc of this whole thing.

Reilly himself said barely a month ago, in relation to Mick Wallace's outstanding debts - "It's absolutely unacceptable for a person not to pay their dues"

It's just another example of the hypocrisy shown by certain FG ministers. How people can defend him while he continues to leech off the state securing tax breaks for his mansion etc is beyond me. If this was some random pleb owing vast amounts of money; many of those here defending him would have their pitchforks ready to attack. Another fat pig with his head well in the trough is all he is.

But hey.. LOOK OVER THERE... A ULA MEMBER IS USING OUR TAX MONEY TO STAY IN A B&B!!!1

seamus · 11-07-2012 02:05PM

Biggins wrote: »

Again - wrong:
http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-james-reilly-nursing-home-debt-defaulters-health-dail-515954-Jul2012/

How is that wrong? I think you're misinterpreting things to say what you'd like them to say again. There are no individual debts, the debt is not split.

Jointly and separately liable basically means that the creditor can chase any one of them for the entire debt. It doesn't mean that any one of them can pay off their individual share.

Biggins · 11-07-2012 02:08PM

Dave! wrote: »

Doesn't that mean that they're all jointly and individually liable for the total amount due, not for their own individual portions? Which is what was already pointed out.

Therefore as seamus mentioned, he could pay the whole 1+ million if he wanted. Are you suggesting that he should?

I'm NOT suggesting he can pay it - but until there is an legal change/addition to the law, thats sadly the way it currently stands.
It might not be fair (we have seen the law still being an ass at times still) but thats the way its currently written and as such of the bill/court order is not complied with any or all, are left with the bill (or bills) of the others in total.

There is a way out of this via the setting up of a "Limited company" and details within that legality but as of yet, we have yet to hear that this is applicable to the group.

seamus wrote: »

Jointly and separately liable basically means that the creditor can chase any one of them for the entire debt.

Correct, as the law is applicable in this case.

seamus wrote: »

It doesn't mean that any one of them can pay off their individual share.

They might not be able to - but thats the law as it stands.

therewillbe · 11-07-2012 02:08PM

I am getting a real pain in my f*****G head with these fools:mad: Is it time for a 2nd republic? Off with their heads!!!

Chips Lovell · 11-07-2012 02:10PM

If you're not suggesting he pay the whole €1.9 million himself, what are you suggesting he should have done?

humanji · 11-07-2012 02:11PM

If you think someone is a shill, report them with your evidence or keep it to yourself. Don't drag a thread off topic thinking that you're being smart.

token101 · 11-07-2012 02:14PM

Treason & off with their heads :pac:

It's an investment gone wrong, like countless others. He'll either pay once it's resolved through the courts or be declared bankrupt. It has no impact on his ability to do the job. It's an irrelevance really. The only thing I'd be concerned with is the fact that a Minister for Health has vested interests in private health institutions.

Biggins · 11-07-2012 02:14PM

At the end of the day, O'Reilly is faced with double standards being exposed.
...And I think thats what (again) has a lot of people annoyed.
Thats it seems to be one rule for one bunch of people and another set for the rest of us.

token101 wrote: »

...The only thing I'd be concerned with is the fact that a Minister for Health has vested interests in private health institutions.

That would be my main concern.

christmas2012 · 11-07-2012 02:16PM

bet hell get off with our justice system its a joke - life of reilly and all that

Biggins · 11-07-2012 02:19PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you're not suggesting he pay the whole €1.9 million himself, what are you suggesting he should have done?

If that question is addressed to me (if not, I'll have a stab at it) then I would request my legal team/finance people to go back to the court prior to the April deadline and ask for adjuration till the finance matter was resolved.
I would see that my legal team gave the courts full access (with understanding about confidentiality of course) to my related trust and accounts and be able to see/follow any action made by my trusties, to get the matter resolved.

That way the later passing of being classed as a legal defaulter might have been postponed, if not cleared entirely (before it could even come into effect) after the debt is eventually settled.

...But sadly, O'Reilly it appears did nothing enough that a court could see was advantageous to him not becoming classed a being a debtor.

seamus · 11-07-2012 02:21PM

token101 wrote: »

It's an investment gone wrong, like countless others. He'll either pay once it's resolved through the courts or be declared bankrupt. It has no impact on his ability to do the job. It's an irrelevance really.

Actually if he's declared bankrupt, he'll have to vacate his seat. So for me, that's the main thing which he needs to clear up - is he sitting on a pot of gold waiting to pay off his share of this debt, or is he genuinely in financial difficulty?

The only thing I'd be concerned with is the fact that a Minister for Health has vested interests in private health institutions.

Considering that he had this investment before becoming Minister and had/has no way of getting rid of it, I'm not really concerned about that.
It's an anomaly, that's about it. I don't think it's something which needs to necessarily be legislated for.

Stiffler2 · 11-07-2012 02:23PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Whatever about the legalities etc of this whole thing.

Reilly himself said barely a month ago, in relation to Mick Wallace's outstanding debts - "It's absolutely unacceptable for a person not to pay their dues"

It's just another example of the hypocrisy shown by certain FG ministers. How people can defend him while he continues to leech off the state securing tax breaks for his mansion etc is beyond me. If this was some random pleb owing vast amounts of money; many of those here defending him would have their pitchforks ready to attack. Another fat pig with his head well in the trough is all he is.

But hey.. LOOK OVER THERE... A ULA MEMBER IS USING OUR TAX MONEY TO STAY IN A B&B!!!1

Well he's certainly got a few supporters on this site, makes me sick tbh
Maybe they don't pay taxes so don't understand, I don't know ?

Perhaps they claim the dole and have never paid tax, again who knows.

Robbo · 11-07-2012 02:55PM

Biggins wrote: »

Let me educate you then - no graphs needed:

A court such as the one O'Reilly has ignored be it his fault or not, under the Offences Against the State Act (for his non-compliance with a state court order) has the power to issue an order of

(a) prohibition, to prevent a person or a group from exercising a power it does not legally have;
(Not applicable I think in this case)

(b) Mandamus, to compel a person or group, to carry out a legal duty.
(THIS DOES APPLY)

(c) Certiorari, to stop a person or group who has exceeded their legal powers.
(Not applicable I think in this case)

(d) Habeas Corpus (one I'm sure some have all heard of but wondering what the hell it is!), to require a person with his possible detainer to attend before a high court to explain the circumstances of, and justification for possible detention.
(Not applicable I think in this case)

Apart from the four methods of trial (summary trial, trial by jury, trial by military court and special courts), enumerated in the constitution, the courts assume the power to punish ANY act which plainly tends to create a disregard for the authority of the courts.
Contempt 'in facie curaie' in the face of the court is punishable by the court before which the offence is committed.
If you want to argue the law, we can get right down to the nitty-gritty.
Its what I have studied and partly qualified in for some years.

Some of the above does apply to Mr O'Reilly and his cohorts, some don't, but the fact remains that he has broken a court order, is a defaulter and it flies in the clear face of what Enda Kenny has stated previously!
End of story - despite how others might spin it otherwise.

Can I have the sections and which particular Offences Against the State Act, please? I'm getting a right good legal schooling here.

Biggins · 11-07-2012 03:00PM

Robbo wrote: »

Can I have the sections and which particular Offences Against the State Act, please? I'm getting a right good legal schooling here.

Again in relation to defiance of a state court and it orders upon a person and/or body:

31.—Where an offence under any section or sub-section of this Act is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been so committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of such body corporate, such director, manager, secretary, or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, whether such body corporate has or has not been proceeded against in respect of the said offence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0031.html#sec31

Sorry about the lack of graphs.

By the way, additionally by he not complying with the April deadline, he also conflicts with 'Offences Against The Administration of Justice' too
See: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0027/print.html

Simple version: by defying an appointed state court and subsequently their order(s), one is in defiance of the state to some degree - which will be ascertained later upon appearance or re-appearance there.

Robbo · 11-07-2012 03:09PM

That covers a body corporate, not a natural person like Reilly. And it only deals with certain proscribed offences under the Act (membership of an illegal organisation, running secret societies in the army etc). How is any of this relevant?

Biggins · 11-07-2012 03:16PM

Robbo wrote: »

That covers a body corporate, not a natural person like Reilly. And it only deals with certain proscribed offences under the Act (membership of an illegal organisation, running secret societies in the army etc). How is any of this relevant?

It includes also defiance of the state and its appointed (through the constitution in this case) of courts and their mandates.

Its a far reaching point of law that frankly (like the Irish blasphemy laws that was recently enacted) would be a pain in the backside to follow up.
But if some pain in the backside, wanted to do so, they could use the law (again at a stretch) to go after someone.

I suspect O' Reilly is safe! :cool:

The law is still an ass sometimes!

Chips Lovell · 11-07-2012 03:20PM

Biggins wrote: »

If that question is addressed to me (if not, I'll have a stab at it) then I would request my legal team/finance people to go back to the court prior to the April deadline and ask for adjuration till the finance matter was resolved.
I would see that my legal team gave the courts full access (with understanding about confidentiality of course) to my related trust and accounts and be able to see/follow any action made by my trusties, to get the matter resolved.

Question. Is it possible to do this if the interest had been passed on to a blind trust?

Biggins · 11-07-2012 03:28PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Question. Is it possible to do this if the interest had been passed on to a blind trust?

I assume that whomever has the trust, still has been handed temp power of attorney.
As such any of their actions (or lack of them) should still be accountable to a court thats looking into related matters, and if thats the case, they should be for their own betterment, be doing their best to be transparent to the court.

For clarity, in Irish legal terms there is only a number of legal trusts defined.

Express Trusts.
Implied Trusts.
Resulting Trusts.
Constructive trusts.
Voidable Trusts.
Public or Charitable trusts.

Mr O'Reilly would be included under the category of Constructive trusts.

With the application of a 'blind' possible sub-section, although trustees who have been given power of attorney, would have full discretion over the assets, and the trust beneficiaries have no knowledge of the holdings of the trust and no right to intervene in their handling, the principle original owner when exiting the status that force them to create the trust, would still then avail of the outgoing revenues created (naturally) by the trust.

So while Mr O'Reilly might - did not - immediately gain, in the long term in certain circumstances, by his possible actions in office, at a later date a profitable benefit might be possible if economic and economy statuses were favourable over all in the intermediate period.

Thats what has a few concerned.

* Point of legal order.
In England "Constructive trusts" hold a different meaning altogether than the meaning in Irish legality.

daddydick · 11-07-2012 04:22PM

Biggins, for the love of God can you stop calling him O'Reilly?? Seeing that you are an expert on all things James Reilly have you never noticed that his name isnt James O'Reilly? He took the soup for God sakes.:mad:

Biggins · 11-07-2012 04:28PM

daddydick wrote: »

Biggins, for the love of God can you stop calling him O'Reilly?? Seeing that you are an expert on all things James Reilly have you never noticed that his name isnt James O'Reilly? He took the soup for God sakes.:mad:

Sorry, kept thinking of the Irish derivative for some reason.
Must be misplaced patriotic tendencies!

Chips Lovell · 11-07-2012 04:38PM

Do we really have to drag sectarian crap into this now?

ballsymchugh · 11-07-2012 04:43PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Do we really have to drag sectarian crap into this now?

with tomorrow being the (in)glorious 12th?!

Biggins · 11-07-2012 04:54PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Do we really have to drag sectarian crap into this now?

:pac:

Thats it, I'm off to the next Ergo party to unwind!

(...before ye all wonder...)

Boombastic · 11-07-2012 06:18PM

Biggins wrote: »

:pac:

Thats it, I'm off to the next Ergo party to unwind!

(...before ye all wonder...)

That's dedication! I hope you can claim that on expenses?:pac:

James Reilly ignored court order to pay 1.9million bank debt

Comments