Vin from TNS Radio takes an interesting look at the circumstances currently surrounding the current Minister for Health, Dr. James Reilly. He opens up with a quick recap of Constitution Halts Sheriff. Specifically, Vin shows a recap of the fact that a magistrate will quite often also be the Sheriff who will eventually carry out the (usually unsigned) order. He covers that the constitution clearly states that a man’s home is inviolable, save in accordance with the law. And finally he covers that the State will not interfere with the personal rights of any citizen, in so far as is possible.
Dr. James Reilly and the Impending Sheriff
In The Herald on July 13th 2012, an article regarding the 13 bedroom mansion of Dr. James Reilly may be about to be seized by his county sheriff, in order to satisfy a 1.9 million euro debt currently outstanding. Vin posses the question, is will Dr. James Reilly rely on his constitutional right for his home to be inviolable save in accordance with the law? Will Dr. James Reilly ask perhaps for Ben Gilroy to stand and talk to the Sheriff if he comes to repossess the home?
We would of course like to inform the Minister that if he should choose not to satisfy the debt with his Ministerial wages, that Ben and People For Economic Justice will be only too happy to ensure that he does not face eviction. Such is our commitment to make eviction a dead and forgotten practice on this island. No matter who the person is, no matter how big or small they may be in the political or economic spectrum, no one deserves to have their home taken from them. The office of Sheriff is not provided for in the Irish Constitution. It is a legacy from 1915 and the years previous to it. It must be removed immediately.
Given the option, what would you choose? Hire a solicitor, who makes no guarantee of results, to the point where he wont even trust himself to win enough money with which to you can pay said solicitor? A solicitor who still expects payment even if he does not advance your cause in the slightest? Or alternatively ask Ben Gilroy to help? Ben Gilroy who has a proven track record of halting even the most tenacious Receivers and Sheriffs, and who will ask for nothing more than the price of a pint, or maybe a few euro’s towards a tank of petrol to and from the court?
Doesn’t seem like a difficult decision…
One important point mentioned in this video is the useful tool called the Mackensi Friend. This is the simple rule of court, where in a person who might be too nervous to represent themselves, and to indebted to the banks to have a hope of paying for a solicitor, to have a friend stand beside them and speak on their behalf. This allows Ben Gilroy be speak for just about any home owner.
The Mind of Ben Gilroy
One instance occurred where in Ben was about to stand as Mackensi Friend for a man. The banks solicitor immediately objected at the start of the proceedings. When the judge asked to what the solicitor was objecting, the solicitor pointed at Ben Gilory and said “HIM!”. The judge asked the solicitor to explain, and the solicitor stated that they were not suing the man, but in fact were suing the company (whose name was exactly the same as the man) and therefore the rule of the Mackensi Friend did not apply in this case. The defendant asked for a short break as he had not been expecting this, and the request was granted.
Outside the courtroom, Ben instructed the man to call to order an emergency meeting of his companies directors. The man did this, with a look of confusion on his face. Ben then stated “Vote me in as a director”, which the man did with a look of dawning comprehension on his face. Ben then lead them back into the court, and upon the Judge declaring the court was now in session, Ben immediately stood up and launched into a speak, beginning with: “Speaking as a director…”. The solicitors face fell.
Just goes to show you, there is always a way around a problem. As always thanks to TNS Radio for this video.
Today’s interview is something of a cross between an audio and a video article. Vin at TNS Radio and Ben Gilroy talk their way through a recent interview with Ben on TV3. Vin plays and pauses the video as he and Ben discuss what is going on throughout.
The interview in question is in regards to the taking back of a bar outside of Cork from the receivers who had entered the bar, gave the owner a few hundred euro, and for all intents and purposes simply told her to “get out”. As per usual, no tri-party agreement was furnished to or by the receiver, and the court order under which the receivers were operating was not signed by a high court judge. The incident with Mr. Gerry Burns goes into these issues in more detail.
Vin and Ben Gilroy discuss the TV3 Interview:
Ben points out that between the two parties involved in the transaction (the bank and the customer), the only party who has broken any laws would be the banks. They broke serious liquidity laws which carry punishments of five years. How many bankers have you heard of being removed from their businesses or dwellings as a result of these crimes? Under the constitution, “The Dwelling Of Every Citizen Is Inviolable And Shall Not Be Forcibly Entered Save In Accordance With Law”. As the bankers are the only ones who have broken the law, they are the only ones for whom their dwelling may be entered.