Sheriff Breaks into House

Vin from TNS Radio took a trip out to 171 Beaumont Road in Dublin today, camera in hand, at the request of Ben Gilroy. Ben arrived at the scene earlier on, to find that the owner of the house had been the victim of a breaking-and-entering. As luck would have it, the owners and their neighbours, whose house happened to be adjoined via hallway connection, had taken it upon themselves previously to install a camera system outside the house. Imagine Ben and the owners surprise to discover that the house had been broken into by a trained Locksmith, under the instructions of someone calling themselves “The Sheriff Of The City Of Dublin“.

In total, six people trespassed on the person’s property.

The Sheriff Of The City Of Dublin

What makes this instance even more interesting, is that the owner of 173 Beaumont Road, having owed no money what-so-ever, least of all someone called “The Sheriff Of The City Of Dublin“, had also had their furniture stolen. The 70-year-old in question attempted to alert “The Sheriff Of The City Of Dublin” while he was on the premises before Ben arrived, but the “The Sheriff Of The City Of Dublin” ignored this information and proceeded to steal the woman’s possessions. On top of all this, the owner of 171 Beaumont Road was sent into a cardiac event, and has had to be taken to nearby Beaumont Hospital.

Luckily the “The Sheriff Of The City Of Dublin” and the other thieves did not notice the camera system in another room. This will be of great use in demonstrating the unlawful theft of the woman’s property, as well as the events leading up to the man’s fight for his life in the nearby hospital. Two members of An Garda Síochána have attended the premises and they have stated outright that the contents of the video footage “does not seem right”. This matter will be taken up against “The Sheriff Of The City Of Dublin” in the commercial courts, and an official complaint has been raised with An Garda Síochána.

13 thoughts on “Sheriff Breaks into House

We strongly advise against using comments to ask for help, as it may go unread. Please use our contact form.

    • Hi Dave

      You maybe right, he may be legally right but he’s lawfully wrong and if you don’t know the difference you need education fast.

      I’ll try explain really quickly. When the Nazis were killing Jews and others the courts, judges and police in Germany thought that was right and it was legally but obviously its lawfully wrong.

      We live in a common law jurisdiction not a common legal jurisdiction thank God. A famous quote for you ” nothing can be politically correct that’s morally wrong”

      • You are right i do not know the difference.How can you be legally right but lawfully wrong. Now your can be legally right but morally wrong i accept that. maybe that’s what you mean.

      • “I refer you to the answer I gave the start, address that if you can.”

        I will have to answer here as for some reason the i cant answer under your last comment.

        1. What Nazis did to the Jews was illegal not only in German law but also International law

        Based on an extra-legal jurisdiction authorized by Hitler as Führer, the concentration camp literally stood outside the laws of the German state.

        Just as the Americans have Guantanamo Bay detention camp

        2 The courts where replaced by Hitler

        Hitler set up the Nazi people’s courts on 24 April 1934, where the judges were required to swear an oath of loyalty to the Nazis. This had resulted from his anger over the courts’ decision to not sentence the communists to death for the Reichstag fire, and allowed Hitler greater control over the judgments that were made in court

        So the courts were not listening to Hitler so he replayed them and sent Jew and other prisoners to concentration camps that German law did not apply.

        So to answer your question what they did was not legal or lawfull.

        • David – how much are you paid to do this lousy job man – go on, try this outdated method of spinn all you like – people like you and thoes you work for are finished – Ireland has woke up and you boys better start packing

          • I do not know what you mean by, how much am i paid. I advocate on different places for low or no tax’s for the lest well off in Ireland and higher tax’s for the wealthy. I live by the saying ” the strong show always protect the weak” it is our moral duty. And i think that Ben Gilroy is taking advantage of the weak.

  1. “The Dwelling Of Every Citizen Is Inviolable And Shall Not Be Forcibly Entered Save In Accordance With Law”

    So is the sheriff entering the house in “Accordance with Law”

    So i guess you could argue that “Accordance with Law” in the Constitution was meant to mean criminal law and as this is a civil matter any law the sheriff is using would be repugnant to the constitution and so illegal.

    However all laws passed have the presumption of constitutionality so it would be up to some like you to prove otherwise.

    So why not take a High Court case who knows you could win.

  2. Ben Gilroy – you are a true patriot. Ireland needs people like you. And Ireland is behind you. You are the first and only person I have seen who is out there trying to help people. The world is full of talkers, like david above.
    But you sir have my respect, and many many more Irish people are joining you.
    You have my vote sir.
    Onwards and Upwards

    • So you would give you vote to some one who is either lying about or is completely ignorant of the Law, to the position of law maker.

Leave a Reply to David shaw Cancel reply