Dr James Reilly and his unpaid debts

LostinKildare

sarumite wrote: »

I don't care whether you would consider it my obligation to pay his half. . .

Sarumite, c'mon. My personal view is neither here nor there -- it's a matter of law. If you think that enforcement of a contract, and the obligation to comply with a court order, are terribly unfair, then your argument is with the law, not with me.

sarumite wrote: »

From my perspective he is as much a 'victim' as they are. Both he and the others are getting stiffed.

The law provides a remedy -- Reilly (or any of the other partners who paid all or more than their "share") could sue the others to recoup the outlay (and possibly get damages, too? I don't know). But bottom line: a court order must be complied with, and it wasn't.

LostinKildare

djpbarry wrote: »

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Dr Reilly is not solely responsible for paying this debt?

How many times do I need to post the phrase

Joint and Several Liability?

djpbarry

LostinKildare wrote: »

Joint[b/]

Yes you've posted that word a few times now but it doesn't seem to have registered with you?

LostinKildare

Wider Road wrote: »

Damien English FG TD was on the Vincent Browne show a couple of nights ago. One point that was raised by Vincent was the "blind trust". Vincent said it was impossible to apply in this instance and Damien said that he "didn't know the answer". Next morning we hear all the govt TD's & Ministers telling us that they are satisfied with Dr Reilly's explaination in the Dail!
Does anyone know the answer?

In his Dail statement, Reilly said that creation of a blind trust was considered, but rejected in favor of Power of Attorney:

Discussions with the Standards in Public Office Commission initially centred on the creation of a “Blind Trust” to set aside my interest for such period as I remained a Minister. The establishment of such a Blind Trust would have involved the transfer of my interest to a Trustee and in those circumstances required Bank consent. Bank consent was sought. However, the Bank felt it would be inappropriate to grant consent to such a transfer in circumstances where litigation was in being in the Commercial Courts.

Subsequently the Standards in Public Office Commission advised that it would be acceptable to proceed by way of a Power of Attorney . . .

That account contradicts both the Register of Interests and Reilly's written answer last month to a parliamentary question about the Register of Interests:

636. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Health Dr James Reilly if he will clarify any interests he has in private nursing homes in general and in The Greenhills Nursing Home, County Tipperary in particular. [29405/12]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly):
The Deputy will be aware that pursuant to the provisions of the Ethics in Public Office Acts, 1995 and 2001, members of Dáil Eireann are required to disclose any relevant interests in the Register of Interests established under the Acts. Accordingly I have stated in the Register that I have a quarter share interest in a property in Tipperary which houses the Green Hills Nursing Home. The nursing home business itself is run by a separate company in which I have no involvement. As has been frequently reported in the media already, the issue of the ownership of the wider property was the subject of a court case which ended in agreement earlier this year. My interest in the property has been transferred into a blind trust and it is the intention for that interest to be divested as soon as is practicable.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/19/00431.asp

The Irish Times today reports that Reilly has moved to correct the "unintended error" in the Register of Interests. Another interesting detail uncovered: Reilly wanted his interest in the nursing home to be transferred to a blind trust controlled by his brother.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0713/1224319966329.html#.T_9qXekQ6Vo.twitter

sarumite

LostinKildare wrote: »

Sarumite, c'mon. My personal view is neither here nor there -- it's a matter of law. If you think that enforcement of a contract, and the obligation to comply with a court order, are terribly unfair, then your argument is with the law, not with me.



The law provides a remedy -- Reilly (or any of the other partners who paid all or more than their "share") could sue the others to recoup the outlay (and possibly get damages, too? I don't know). But bottom line: a court order must be complied with, and it wasn't.

In fairness, you have injected emotive language like "stiffed" into the conversation which is hardly legal jargon. Had my housemate not paid his rent (nor his parents covered it, which is what thankfully happened) and had I chosen not to cover his portion of the debt then it is probable the landlord would have gotten half the rent. Had you said that I, personally, had "stiffed" the landlord I am pretty sure I would have told you where to shove it.

Happyman42

LostinKildare wrote: »

In his Dail statement, Reilly said that creation of a blind trust was considered, but rejected in favor of Power of Attorney:



That account contradicts both the Register of Interests and Reilly's written answer last month to a parliamentary question about the Register of Interests:



The Irish Times today reports that Reilly has moved to correct the "unintended error" in the Register of Interests. Another interesting detail uncovered: Reilly wanted his interest in the nursing home to be transferred to a blind trust controlled by his brother.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0713/1224319966329.html#.T_9qXekQ6Vo.twitter

The whole thing is developing quite a stink. Add an island off the south coast to his 'interests' and you get the picture.
Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes FG. The whole handling of this by the FG press office seems to have been to obscure and confuse. Varadkar was on Drivetime yesterday trying to suggest AGAIN that Reilly was unaware of his impending inclusion in Stubbs. Transperancy? Ha!

TheChizler

Just looked up the definition [of joint and several liability] there, it's a bit of a bollox really. Seems like anyone with a slight connection to the case (and deep pockets) can be named as a defendant and obliged to pay the entire thing.

LostinKildare

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes you've posted that word a few times now but it doesn't seem to have registered with you?

I understand it perfectly. Usually, each partner would pay an apportioned share, but any one partner can be pursued for the entire amount.

The money was due a year ago, the 5 partners failed to honor the contract. A judge ordered that it be paid by the end of April -- whether each partner paid an equal share or one partner paid the full amount, it had to be paid by that date, and it wasn't. Legally, each of the five partners is liable for (and now has defaulted on) the entire 1.9 million.

K-9

LostinKildare wrote: »

I understand it perfectly. Usually, each partner would pay an apportioned share, but any one partner can be pursued for the entire amount.

The money was due a year ago, the 5 partners failed to honor the contract. A judge ordered that it be paid by the end of April -- whether each partner paid an equal share or one partner paid the full amount, it had to be paid by that date, and it wasn't. Legally, each of the five partners is liable for (and now has defaulted on) the entire 1.9 million.

Except in this case it would seem agreement has been reached or very close to it, so it would seem unnecessary for him to pay the full amount.

Dave!

LostinKildare wrote: »

I understand it perfectly. Usually, each partner would pay an apportioned share, but any one partner can be pursued for the entire amount.

The money was due a year ago, the 5 partners failed to honor the contract. A judge ordered that it be paid by the end of April -- whether each partner paid an equal share or one partner paid the full amount, it had to be paid by that date, and it wasn't. Legally, each of the five partners is liable for (and now has defaulted on) the entire 1.9 million.

Why would Dr Reilly pay the full amount as opposed to one of the others?

Atilathehun

Didn't this plonker, promise to fix the health service within a year of taking office.
He can't fix a bit of a problem, with a small business venture he got into.
Enda Kenny, step up to the mark, and fire his ass!!!!!
Write up his report card, and send him packing.
Even the minister for septic tanks would do a a better job.

LostinKildare

K-9 wrote: »

Except in this case it would seem agreement has been reached or very close to it, so it would seem unnecessary for him to pay the full amount.

Do you have insider knowledge of the case? According to Reilly's statement to the Dail, they haven't even finalized a new lease agreement, so there's nothing to present to the bank for remortgage consideration, and the partners haven't even agreed on a methodology by which the non-recourse partners can be paid.

But in any case, it's not up to us to decide how many more months Reilly and partners can have to work out their arrangements -- that is, how long the creditors should have to wait for payment. A judge already decided that.

Dave! wrote: »

Why would Dr Reilly pay the full amount as opposed to one of the others?

It doesn't have to be him. But I would have thought that he had the most to lose by the default -- a cabinet minister in violation of a court order, defaulting on a debt from a speculative property development which reopens a whole can of worms about his own conflict of interest as a health minister, and the attendant damage to his own credibility, as well as that of his supporters and the govt itself.

Dave!

It might help him politically, but that doesn't mean it's right or moral for him to have to pay it all. They're all equally liable AFAIK. In fact putting pressure on him to have to pay a €1m+ penalty that nobody else would have to pay is a bit immoral IMO.

K-9

LostinKildare wrote: »

Do you have insider knowledge of the case? According to Reilly's statement to the Dail, they haven't even finalized a new lease agreement, so there's nothing to present to the bank for remortgage consideration, and the partners haven't even agreed on a methodology by which the non-recourse partners can be paid.

I'm going on his statement. He expects the agreement to be finalised.

But in any case, it's not up to us to decide how many more months Reilly and partners can have to work out their arrangements -- that is, how long the creditors should have to wait for payment. A judge already decided that.

Yes, that doesn't mean agreement can't be reached and the judgment lifted.

It doesn't have to be him. But I would have thought that he had the most to lose by the default -- a cabinet minister in violation of a court order, defaulting on a debt from a speculative property development which reopens a whole can of worms about his own conflict of interest as a health minister, and the attendant damage to his own credibility, as well as that of his supporters and the govt itself.

It would seem he tried to sell his interest but couldn't, maybe he couldn't get finance for the full amount. While his list of assets looks grand banks mightn't see it that way atm and you don't know what other borrowings he has.

Cardinal Richelieu

LostinKildare wrote: »

In his Dail statement, Reilly said that creation of a blind trust was considered, but rejected in favor of Power of Attorney:



That account contradicts both the Register of Interests and Reilly's written answer last month to a parliamentary question about the Register of Interests:



The Irish Times today reports that Reilly has moved to correct the "unintended error" in the Register of Interests. Another interesting detail uncovered: Reilly wanted his interest in the nursing home to be transferred to a blind trust controlled by his brother.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0713/1224319966329.html#.T_9qXekQ6Vo.twitter

His brother locally goes by the nickname of Dicey.:D I didn't just make that up, when you live in cousin marrying country nicknames are pretty common with so few surnames.

djpbarry

Atilathehun wrote: »

Didn't this plonker, promise to fix the health service within a year of taking office.

I really, really doubt it.

Happyman42

djpbarry wrote: »

I really, really doubt it.

I doubt it really Reilly.

Tragedy

Dave! wrote: »

It's been pointed out in another thread that really, experts in a field become experts by being involved in the field. It's rare that they'd be insulated from involvement in the industry that they've spent their lives studying and practicing, "Break glass if expert is required".

This same idea is often used to dismiss research or testimony from e.g. researchers who previously had involvement with pharmaceutical companies. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think that as long as a potential conflict is declared up-front, the person shouldn't be automatically precluded. Of course, there should also be monitoring to ensure that the person isn't abusing their power to benefit themselves.

Ultimately I'd rather a Health Minister who has been involved in the medical field for his whole career, rather than another teacher on a career break. Ideally you'd have someone with relevant experience who has no potential conflicts of interest, but I'm not sure Fine Gael have anyone who can match Dr. Reilly in that regard.

Dr. Reilly was a GP for 25 years and President of the IMO. How does any of that qualify him to run a health service? One need only look at Dr. Drumm's abject failures in the HSE to see that being a (renowned) expert in the field doesn't qualify one as a good administrator.

ArmaniJeanss

Tragedy wrote: »

Dr. Reilly was a GP for 25 years and President of the IMO. How does any of that qualify him to run a health service? One need only look at Dr. Drumm's abject failures in the HSE to see that being a (renowned) expert in the field doesn't qualify one as a good administrator.

In fairness there is probably not one person in the country qualified to run the entire health service.
Even if such a person actually exists, then it's extremely unlikely that they would bother going down the mucky route of politics. Feck it, if I was capable of perfectly managing a €15B budget and 100,000 employees then the last thing I'd be doing is joining a political party, solving peoples local pothole issues for 3 years in the hope they'll elect me councillor which might just be a platform to get into the Dail in another few years and if I bide my time and make the right friends then I might bink a ministery.

So realistically it comes down to which of the 100 TDs who got themselves elected onto the government side of the Dail is best equipped for the role of Minister for Health. Whether thats Reilly or not I don't know, but I doubt theres any of the 100 who who could do a startlingly better job.

leeroybrown

Tragedy wrote: »

Dr. Reilly was a GP for 25 years and President of the IMO. How does any of that qualify him to run a health service? One need only look at Dr. Drumm's abject failures in the HSE to see that being a (renowned) expert in the field doesn't qualify one as a good administrator.

I think there's a big difference there. The Minister for Health's role in the health service is in the areas of policy and appropriation of money. There's a large government department there staffed with senior civil servants most of whom will outlive five governments in the department. The minister will oversee government level decisions and discussions, not run the health service. The head of the HSE is a day-to-day operational role managing a large service provision organisation. You really need someone with skills and experience running a company of that size not someone with a good clinical background.

Tragedy

leeroybrown wrote: »

I think there's a big difference there. The Minister for Health's role in the health service is in the areas of policy and appropriation of money. There's a large government department there staffed with senior civil servants most of whom will outlive five governments in the department. The minister will oversee government level decisions and discussions, not run the health service. The head of the HSE is a day-to-day operational role managing a large service provision organisation. You really need someone with skills and experience running a company of that size not someone with a good clinical background.

You phrase the first as if it's somehow different to the second and yet in your post you clearly show them to be extremely similar.

To clarify, how exactly does being a GP (which has almost nothing to do with the public service/HSE other than the Medical Card Scheme) for 25 years qualify Dr. Reilly to somehow be the Minister for Health?

leeroybrown

Tragedy wrote: »

You phrase the first as if it's somehow different to the second and yet in your post you clearly show them to be extremely similar.

On re-reading I probably should have phrased my post a lot better. My point was that the CEO of the HSE is there to run an extremely large public sector organisation not to have any understanding of medical issues. They take government policy and money and try to run a functioning organisation. The Minister for Health isn't running that organisation and they have a Secretary General whose job is to run the Dept. of Health. Yes they are responsible for government oversight of both those organisations but they have an equally important remit in the area of government health policy, somewhere where a deep understanding of the health sector is a valuable asset.

I think we definitely agree that having a background in the field doesn't necessarily make someone a better Minister or HSE CEO. I just think that having a strong background in the health sector is potentially of far more use to the minister than it is to the HSE CEO.

Tragedy wrote: »

To clarify, how exactly does being a GP (which has almost nothing to do with the public service/HSE other than the Medical Card Scheme) for 25 years qualify Dr. Reilly to somehow be the Minister for Health?

It doesn't. Actively involving himself with health issues in the Fine Gael party to the point where they deemed him suitable to be party spokesperson on the area ultimately qualified him as the person in government with expertise in health policy. Working for 25 years as a GP clearly gave him the interest and background to gain that support within his party.

I'd also add that contrary to what you say GPs have a very high level of exposure to requirements of the electorate from a health service. They're the ones who deal with patients from birth to death. On top of their normal day to day health care they arrange consultant referrals, mental health referrals, deal with aftercare for patients who've been through the hospital system and deal with the elderly/infirm in later life. They're the ones who are in the community and talk to patients about everything.

mloc

leeroybrown wrote: »

It doesn't. Actively involving himself with health issues in the Fine Gael party to the point where they deemed him suitable to be party spokesperson on the area ultimately qualified him as the person in government with expertise in health policy. Working for 25 years as a GP clearly gave him the interest and background to gain that support within his party.

I think this is true, combined with the fact he was GP representative for the IMO, and president also.

Tragedy

leeroybrown wrote: »

On re-reading I probably should have phrased my post a lot better. My point was that the CEO of the HSE is there to run an extremely large public sector organisation not to have any understanding of medical issues. They take government policy and money and try to run a functioning organisation. The Minister for Health isn't running that organisation and they have a Secretary General whose job is to run the Dept. of Health. Yes they are responsible for government oversight of both those organisations but they have an equally important remit in the area of government health policy, somewhere where a deep understanding of the health sector is a valuable asset.

Your explanation of your explanation is even less explanatory. Dr. Reilly will never come up with policy. Policy is formulated by experts, think-tanks, institutes and academia. As Minister, he is responsible for oversight and ultimate decision making -> not for formulation of policy.

I think we definitely agree that having a background in the field doesn't necessarily make someone a better Minister or HSE CEO. I just think that having a strong background in the health sector is potentially of far more use to the minister than it is to the HSE CEO.

There is zero evidence to support this supposition, and decades of evidence from Management in the private sector supports the opposite (that having a background in a sector has no real relevance on long term performance in Managing that sector).


It doesn't. Actively involving himself with health issues in the Fine Gael party to the point where they deemed him suitable to be party spokesperson on the area ultimately qualified him as the person in government with expertise in health policy. Working for 25 years as a GP clearly gave him the interest and background to gain that support within his party.

I'd also add that contrary to what you say GPs have a very high level of exposure to requirements of the electorate from a health service. They're the ones who deal with patients from birth to death. On top of their normal day to day health care they arrange consultant referrals, mental health referrals, deal with aftercare for patients who've been through the hospital system and deal with the elderly/infirm in later life. They're the ones who are in the community and talk to patients about everything.

I said a GP had little to do with the public service/HSE other than the medical card scheme. In response, you stated it has very high levels of exposure and your stated reasons were:
1)Consultant referral (where a GP looks up a directory of consultants and sends off a letter)
2)Limited aftercare .. which has what exactly to do with the HSE/health policy?

You seem to be arguing yourself into a corner with illogical and nonsensical examples.

leeroybrown

Tragedy wrote: »

Your explanation of your explanation is even less explanatory. Dr. Reilly will never come up with policy. Policy is formulated by experts, think-tanks, institutes and academia. As Minister, he is responsible for oversight and ultimate decision making -> not for formulation of policy.

We could go around in circles for weeks here. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Tragedy wrote: »

I said a GP had little to do with the public service/HSE other than the medical card scheme. In response, you stated it has very high levels of exposure and your stated reasons were:
1)Consultant referral (where a GP looks up a directory of consultants and sends off a letter)
2)Limited aftercare .. which has what exactly to do with the HSE/health policy?

You seem to be arguing yourself into a corner with illogical and nonsensical examples.

And you're building a straw man and deliberately attempting to frustrate the point. Maybe you work in politics...

I was very clearly pointing out that GPs interact with all parts of the health services for a wide range of patients, something which actually gives them a large exposure to the needs of patients in a health service. The health service after all is about the needs of patients.

Again we'll be going around in circles until long after the HSE ends so we'll agree to disagree.

robclay26

Government ministers and TD's are like nappies, they are full of **** and need to be changed regularly.
Only thing is when you change either the same **** comes out again in due course.

Are we not sick of the lies and bull**** that comes from Leinster house?
Bottom line: it is a conflict of interest with the minister closing homes and he is involved in another, plain and simple

rodento

This is just becoming plain ridiculous

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sheriff-given-power-to-seize-reillys-belongings-3182235.html

HEALTH Minister James Reilly is facing new pressure over his unpaid debts after the sheriff was given the power to seize his belongings if he doesn't pay €1.9m.

TNS Radio

Greetings to all,

Can anyone explain how come there are no provisions in the constitution for the office of sheriff and will James Reilly use this to wriggle out of his position ?

mloc

TNS Radio wrote: »

Greetings to all,

Can anyone explain how come there are no provisions in the constitution for the office of sheriff and will James Reilly use this to wriggle out of his position ?

Not this pseudolegal nonsense again...

nuac

Dr Reilly has enough trouble as it is.

Do not send him off on that Freeman nonsense

TNS Radio

Not trying to hit a nerve here, straight question. If there are no provisions in the constitution for the office of sheriff, and therefore nothing to delineate or outline the powers of said office, how can such an office that yields such impetus be used to effect people to the point of forced removal from their dwellings when there are articles in the constitution that specify against such action.
How can an office not mentioned by or in the constitution override the constitution ?

Kind Regards

Scofflaw

Enough with the "freeman on the land" stuff. That someone is unable to understand how law arises or disagrees with the basis of it doesn't make it inapplicable, and until such time as a "freeman" advocate manages to actually win a case on the basis of his/her beliefs, the legal and political value of such arguments can be approximated by adding "ure" to the first word.

Please read the rules of the forum before blasting me with objections, because the forum rules also apply whether you personally accept them or not.

moderately,
Scofflaw

TNS Radio

Seeking Clarification,

Scofflaw, were you addressing my postings, I ask as seemingly I have received an infraction which I find confusing as I made references to the constitution and it's content only. I am no adherent of the so Called "Freeman on the Land Bullcrap" for the record

Kind regards

K-9

TNS Radio wrote: »

Seeking Clarification,

Scofflaw, were you addressing my postings, I ask as seemingly I have received an infraction which I find confusing as I made references to the constitution and it's content only. I am no adherent of the so Called "Freeman on the Land Bullcrap" for the record

Kind regards

The question you asked is outside the remit of the politics board, the site has a legal discussion board for detailed constitutional law queries and discussion. Plus it's completely off topic to James Reilly and his debts! Any more questions, pm the mods or use the discussion on the rules thread on the main page.