Dear Mr Shannon,
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516
Review meeting on Friday 24 June(1988)
Your client: Mrs Eileen Wright
Following the lengthy meeting in my room last Friday afternoon, 24 June, it was agreed that I would write to you setting out confirmation of a number of questions which were raised during the last part of the discussion. Questions relating to the personal and domestic needs of the Patient will be dealt with in a separate letter which will be sent to Mrs Moiseiwitsch, the hospital social worker involved in the case, of which a copy will be sent to you. [How very interesting, Mr. Hall! It is recorded here that at this time when you were preparing to write to her, this Mrs. Moiseiwitsch - between December 1985 and July 1989 - was actually engaged in committing a total of 34 counts of theft, false accounting and forgery against two frail elderly ladies who lived in a nursing home. This 'care worker' was actually stealing £11,000 which included the elderly ladies' inheritance money. This 'care worker' was actually in Freddie's home in the company of Dr. Lyons, Freddie's psychiatrist on 'official business'. Dr. Lyons suffered from alcoholism. Was this a coincidence, Mr. Hall? I really do not think so. This was the second 'official' involved in the plunder of Freddie's estate to be charged in a Court of law for wrongdoing. So is it any wonder, Mr. Hall, that we question repeatedly what you are saying and doing. You do not keep good company!] The formal [but not honest] responses to written questions submitted by Mrs Wright were circulated to all those who attended at last week's meeting and were, of course, supplemented by additional comments offered during that earlier exchange.
Turning to the matters which were raised after you had an opportunity to consult further with your client and her sister, Mrs Vera Douglas, I can set out for the record the following observations.
1. Claim against Messrs Tughan & Co. I have delivered to you for reference a copy of the terms of settlement concluded with Messrs McCloskey & Co, solicitors representing Messrs Tughan & Co, which were approved by the Judge at a sitting on 10 December 1985. Mrs Wright was present and was represented at that hearing and no objection was raised by her solicitor [No solicitor had the guts to speak up against you and your gang, Mr. Hall. As you can see from my site contents, I objected and objected and objected for years and you would not listen. You also ignored the Fraud Squad investigation findings. Just who do you think you are?] then or subsequently in regard to the constituent elements of the claim - which I explained in detail, again, last Friday.
2. Large piece of ground at Smithfield. Mrs Wright (and her sisters) appear to be convinced [No, Mr. Hall, we ARE convinced] that the Patient owned a very substantial area of ground at the rear of the showroom (Nos 62-65 Smithfield) and they do not appear to have considered that the larger part of the site on which the family business was conducted belonged to the Company - Andrews and Company (Belfast) Limited. [Oh, we have considered everything, Mr. Hall, all your angles, all your lies and all your moves, but you cannot improve on the truth which is that Freddie DID own the "very substantial area of ground at the rear of the showroom".] I have stated, repeatedly, that I have no knowledge of any other significant property within the Smithfield area to which the Patient has any claim or title and I have been confirmed in that view following enquiries addressed to Messrs James Boston & Sullivan, the solicitors who for many years acted both for members of the family and for the Company, and also from further enquiries addressed to Mr William J Andrews - the last member of the family to have management responsibility within the Company and who might, thereby, be expected to have reliable knowledge. [Why is it, Mr. Hall, that when it suits your purpose, you accept what you say is the 'confirmed word' of a member of our family, yet you treat as rubbish what my brother Billy and my sisters and I have continually stated over many years when it is the truth and must not be allowed to fit into your scheme of things.] It has been suggested, however, that you might usefully address a specific enquiry to Mr Alan J Reilly (of Messrs Carson & McDowell) [Ah, yes, Carson & McDowell, the firm of solicitors which was taken to court and found guilty of professional negligence. More bad company, Mr. Hall and the third party involved in the plunder of Freddie's estate to be found guilty in a court of law of misconduct!
In addition to all of these officials involved in the plunder of my brother's estate and its cover-up there is an equally devastating exposure of the Law Society's criminal involvement too. Here is a Law Society letter/internal memo from Mr. Turkington to assistant secretary Moira Neeson regarding my correspondence regarding my brother's case. Nothing came of this exchange. Here you can read Mr. Turkington's involvement in another case of professional misconduct, at least, which casts a serious shadow over the Law Society's capacity to handle ANY case such a my brother's case. In fact and in practice it must be fair to say that the Law Society was actively involved in the cover-up of the plunder of my brother's estate given the number of letters of complaint I sent to it and received no satisfaction.] the solicitor directly involved in the detailed investigation of all titles within the "zone" marked D on the map attached to the Vesting Order - of which you already have a copy.
3. Letter dated 13 August 1985. I return your photocopy of a letter dated 13 August 1985 addressed to Mrs Wright by Mr Chambers of this Office. I have confirmed that the statement made in it is incorrect [I wonder.... This letter was from a man just back from leave. I believe he told me the truth in that letter and probably paid a high price for his 'mistake'. The truth of this whole affair is slowly unfolding, Mr. Hall.] - and I have pointed out the true position [No, Mr. Hall, you are not capable of pointing out the true position. If you were, then Freddie would again be living in 14 Castlehill Road with a full-time care system which he could well afford if it was not for the criminal plundering you and your gang have so successfully carried on, using and abusing the power vested in your office.] in regard to the several properties formerly belonging to the Patient which had been sold [The word is 'stolen', Mr, Hall, not 'sold'.] in the years following his father's death was clearly set out in the first report of the Official Solicitor dated 30 January 1984 [Ah, yes, Mr. Hall, that was your own report, full of lies and disinformation and presented to the High Court judge as truth.] of which your client had knowledge before receiving Mr Chambers' letter. [Yes, of course, I had knowledge of your report before receiving Mr. Chambers' letter, but as I have already said, not even you can improve on the truth and I believe Mr. Chambers told the truth.]
4. Trust estate of Frederick Andrews senior deceased. I explained at last Friday's meeting that, so far as I am aware, the Trust estate or fund to which your client has referred (and which is mentioned in correspondence with Miss Sullivan) is the Trust in favour of the late Mrs Minetta Andrews (as life tenant) created in the last Will of Frederick Andrews senior, the Patient's father, which will now pass on the death of Mrs Andrews to your client and her 2 sisters (Mrs Vera Douglas and Mrs Betty Hamilton) in equal shares. [So, Mr. Hall, you, at long last, admit in writing to having had sight of my father's Will and knew that my mother, Mrs. Minetta Andrews, was entitled to a life tenancy of "Tara House" at 14 Castlehill Road. Why and on whose authority was this condition of my father's Will broken? Why, when you became aware of this stipulation in my father's Will did you not, as the newly appointed Official Solicitor in late 1982, immediately use the power vested in your office to have this broken stipulation mended by having my mother reinstated in her home of many years along with my brother Freddie who was, and still is, actually the owner of "Tara House"? Your failure to return "Tara House" to its rightful owner and its rightful tenant has caused incalculable suffering to our family. Your failure to enforce the law vested in the Office of the Official Solicitor for the protection of my mentally handicapped brother, Freddie, has made you a target of that same law. Your negligence, to say the least, makes a mockery of the law you were charged with enforcing. Your indifference to our family's suffering is appalling.]
5. Questions affecting Mrs Hamilton. [Yes, Mr. Hall, there are always questions affecting members of our family. In fact it is becoming known that you and your friends also have 'questions' affecting other people within the mentally impaired family who have assets!] It was agreed at last Friday's meeting that as there are Chancery proceedings pending between Mrs Hamilton and the Patient it would be appropriate that all correspondence relating to her interest in the Patient's affairs should be conducted exclusively between the Official Solicitor and Messrs Alex Stewart & Son, Mackintosh & Bradley representing Mrs Hamilton. [Another little clique, Mr. Hall. There was absolutely no need for Chancery proceedings and you well know that too, Mr. Hall. The first Official Solicitor should never have burdened my sister Betty Hamilton with the false accusation that my mother gave her money belonging to Freddie and then forced her to sign a charge against her land. This was a total disgrace. My mother was left a wealthy woman and this was just another gang operation to 'relieve' my mother and Betty of more family funds. A totally sick and criminal operation.]
At the end of last weeks's meeting your client asked for further time to consider the replies and explanations offered to her. I have indicated that the view taken both by me and by the present Official Solicitor, Mrs Bowers, is that all proper enquiries in the case have now been completed and that all moneys due to the Patient have been recovered. [Yes, Mr. Hall, you would say that. In fact, you have to say that even though you know that nothing could be further from the truth. Although all proper enquiries really had been completed, in no way were all monies due to the Patient recovered and nobody knows that better than you! The most important enquiries AND FINDINGS, those of the RUC Fraud Squad, were completely and deliberately ignored by you to the extent that not even the Judge was advised about them. At least the Judge was not advised about them in open Court. Now whether that same Judge knew privately of the RUC enquiries and findings is another matter.] This view has already been accepted by the Judge (at the final review hearing held on 9 May 1986) and by the professional representatives of all other interested parties. [You, Mr. Hall, have involved both the Judge and the "professional representatives of all other interested parties" in what is now one of the most serious, most corrupt, and most criminal pieces of institutionalised violence to come out of Northern Ireland in recent years.]Your client is aware that the Judge directed that the Official Solicitor should not embark upon any further enquiry or investigation in the case in relation to matters already covered in the 2 reports prepared by me unless some new or additional information is produced. [Yes, Mr. Hall, you really are frightened about any further enquiries or 'additional information' being produced. Well now, let me tell you what you can already see for yourself. It is now being produced for all the world to see and there is lots more to come!] When you have had an opportunity to consult with your client please let me know whether there is any point upon which you consider that further action is required. [You really are a very frightened little man. I almost feel sorry for you - almost!] I would be grateful if you would send a copy of your reply to Mrs Bowers for her reference also.
F BRIAN HALL