Originally Posted by The Field Marshal
The son is serving 3 months for his proven contempt. His spell of porridge is not affected one way or the other by what his father does.
I realise that facts are subordinate to the need for a moralising, self-righteous snort of indignation, but really. FM . . .
PS: Bonus points for the Nazi reference!
Are the Quinns being persecuted for their staunch Catholic faith? I think you should investigate.
Surely though, using your logic, Ribeye, if the contract is illegal and null and void, the money needs to be returned by the Quinns anyway? Maybe sans interest, but the principle needs to be repaid?Correct, the Quinns were also a party to an illegal contract,
But that does not make tye contract enforceable,
If I pay you €10k to kill someone for me, one of the posters giving me abuse on this thread perhaps, and you don't carry it out, I can't bring you to court to try and get my money back!
Under the law, the two contracts are the same!
The other stuff will have to wait, I'm afraid, it's not my place to say!
Btw, tks for asking for some info, instead of just fireing abuse at me
I think the Quinns are doing themselves more damage (if that is possible) by making asses of themselves on radio and TV. It may be for flagging stations like TV3 to get them on, but the end result is that they are becoming a joke. Long way from the secret card playing man Sean Quinn who only burst out late in the day with Tommie Gorman interview !
If Anglo can prove that the money is theirs, which I'm sure they can, than they can take steps to recover the money, from whoever has it,
But remember, the Quinns don't have it, the money was used to buy shares,
Anglo could use the share register to trace all of the sellers of those shares and take a case against them for the return of the money,
But those sellers have done nothing wrong, they entered into an arms length transaction, which was completely legal,
Anglo would lose that case!
The contract broke the law, it's void, that doesnt mean that there are restrictions imposed by the court, it means, that in the eyes of the law, the contract does not exist!
You missed this post then Ribeye?
Have you built your whole case on an ill-judged faulty assumption, some wishful thinking and a secret nobody can know? Is that it?It is not as clear cut as that at all. Quoting just a tiny bit of Charleton's provisional judgement on the Quinn case (have you even read this?)
A claim based on a resulting trust on two people financing a house in equal shares was held to be enforceable by the House of Lords in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340. This was notwithstanding that the purpose of a house purchase arrangement, in the sole name of Tinsley, was for Milligan to make fraudulent claims for welfare.
Quinn & Ors -v- Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd & AnorGaaahhh. This "I know something you don't" routine has become very tiresome.
Last edited by bokonon; 16th August 2012 at 10:16 AM.
That case is not the same thing,
My argument would not hold if Anglo had loaned the money to the Quinns for the purpose of "Unspecified Investment", and the money had then been used by the Quinns to buy Anglo shares, than the Quinns wouldn't have a leg to stand on,
But that's not what happened, Anglo were accutely aware of the purpose of the loan, and accutely aware that this purpose was in breach of Sec 60,
In my view, it's pretty cut and dried, and given what we already know about how Anglo routinely rode roughshod over the law and the regs, I fail to see how any judge could rule against the Quinns,
Unless, as other posters have inferred, the judiciary has been compromised, which, in my view, is a charge that merits consideration!
And yes, I don't like the whole "I know something you don't know" thing either, but as I don't have possession of the proof, I can't make accusations on here which I can't support, the mods would delete the posts anyway,
And the case won't rest on this info anyway, but it will add lots of spice to the soup,
And it's not person, it's persons
Could anyone tell me if my super-lightweight summary below is in the ball park
As I see it, 3 seperate issues
1. Quinn borrows from Anglo to buy property - Anglo currently chasing that - Sean junior in jail.
2. Quinn borrows from Anglo to buy Anglo shares - court decision made against Quinn - now subject to supreme court appeal by Quinn.
3. Quinn insurance doesn't have enough cash reserves - taken over - ~1 billion shortfall to be made up by insurance levy
From what I gather any property bought by Quinn with Anglo money has been taken over by anglo. Quinn argue that property which was not bought with Anglo money was hidden 2 years ago. Anglo are after this property.
Last edited by Iarmhi Gael; 16th August 2012 at 10:52 AM.
You're in the ball park, but you are lacking an in depth understanding of the game being played,
Are you an Rte sports commentator?
142Likes