` Little King Street.

Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

The seizure and sale of Freddie's Property At Little King Street.

No member of our family had any idea that Freddie's shop and garage at 3 - 5 Little King Street in the centre of Belfast was to be sold. We had no idea that it then had been sold. The following paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are taken from Official Solicitor Brian Hall's first Comprehensive Report to the High Court dated 30 January 1984.

6. Premises: 3-5 Little King Street.
The Patient acquired this property by a Conveyance dated 24 December 1959. I have been informed by Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co that although there is no written record of the source of the original instructions for sale it is recalled that Mr W J Andrews went with Mr Desmond McConnell and Mr Robin Mairs of that firm to inspect the premises during the summer of 1973 at a time before substantial damage was caused to them by a bomb explosion on 17 September 1973. An advertisement had been placed for the sale of the property in the Belfast Telegraph on 18 August 1973 and a "For Sale" board was erected at the premises on 16 September 1973 - the day before the explosion. When the property was first put on the market during the summer of that year the agents were asking for offers of 14,000 but following the damage caused in the explosion a claim was lodged with the Northern Ireland Office for criminal injury compensation of an aggregate amount representing the cost of essential repairs and fees less an appropriate reduction for betterment which produced a figure, then claimed of 7,640. When an offer to purchase the premises in their damaged condition was received from Mr Thomas Bernard Dobbin for the sum of 7,500 it was unequivocally recommended by Mr Mairs to Messrs Tughan & Co for acceptance. There is no written record available as to who authorised acceptance of Mr Dobbin's offer. In any event a Contract was completed for the sale of the property to Mr Dobbin and a Conveyance to him was executed on 2 April 1974.

7. It is clear from the evidence available that this was a prudent sale transaction. Mr Drennan made no adverse comment about it in his first report and I do not wish to raise any point at this stage.
Mr Kerr states in his Opinion: "I ... have no reservation in advising that the Official Solicitor should not seek to challenge the sale".

8. A separate feature of dealings with the property in Little King Street, however, is the delay in resolving the settlement of the criminal injury claim. It appears that an original payable order was issued by the Northern Ireland Office on 6 October 1976 for the sum of 6.100.11. I am making enquiries of the Northern Ireland Office as to the reasons for the delay in settlement of the claim and I also wish to clarify with Messrs Tughan & Co why there was a further delay in the encashment of the payable order which had been issued. Upon the completion of these enquiries I may have a further recommendation to make to the Court."

Those three paragraphs are taken from Official Solicitor Brian Hall's "Comprehensive Report" to a Judge in the High Court in Belfast on 30 January 1984 regarding the covert, illegal and criminal first 'sale' of my mentally-handicapped brother Freddie's property.




Now let me go over those paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Hall's Comprehensive Report again, but this time I will add my comments in red text!

"6. Premises: 3-5 Little King Street.
The Patient acquired this property by a Conveyance dated 24 December 1959. I have been informed by Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co that although there is no written record of the source of the original instructions for sale [There never seems to be a written record, Mr. Hall, in all these illegal transactions carried on in Freddie's name. Surely a written record of the vendor is paramount in any legal sale. If there is no identifiable vendor how can there be a legal sale? Did you not find this unusual, to say the least, and why did you not pursue it? How, under the circumstances of Freddie's inability to make a legally written signature can there be a legal sale without a properly appointed Guardian's or Trustee's signature or a legal Court Order?] it is recalled [That is not good enough, Mr. Hall, and you, as a top lawyer and Government employed lawyer, did know that. Who 'recalled' this information anyway?] that Mr W J Andrews went with Mr Desmond McConnell and Mr Robin Mairs of that firm to inspect the premises during the summer of 1973 at a time before substantial damage was caused to them by a bomb explosion on 17 September 1973. [That is very hard to believe, Mr. Hall. If our brother Mr. W. J. Andrews, or Billy as we knew him, had gone to the Little King Street premises with a view to sell them, he would surely have told us. In fact, Billy had absolutely no authority to advise in, recommend or authorise such a sale and in any case, Billy would not have been party to this carry-on anyway. As I said above no member of the family knew anything about this pending or actual 'sale' nor the following one at 14 Castlehill Road. If Desmond McConnell and Robin Mairs were involved in this 'deal' then they have serious questions to answer.] An advertisement had been placed for the sale of the property in the Belfast Telegraph on 18 August 1973 and a "For Sale" board was erected at the premises on 16 September 1973 - the day before the explosion. [That is simply not true if this account is to be believed, but then it is difficult to know who to believe among the thieves who robbed Freddie. This account from McConnell Martin & Co stated that a For Sale board was erected on 16.8.73 at a cost of 18.50 plus VAT] When the property was first put on the market during the summer of that year the agents [What agents, Mr. Hall? If you are talking about Messrs Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co I doubt if they were involved, given what you state in paragraphs 9 and 10 in this same Comprehensive Report to the High Court Judge where you said exactly the same about the second criminal sale of Freddie's property and it was an altogether different agent who was involved in the second sale only you did not dare expose this fact.] were asking for offers of 14,000 but following the damage caused in the explosion a claim was lodged with the Northern Ireland Office for criminal injury compensation of an aggregate amount representing the cost of essential repairs and fees less an appropriate reduction for betterment which produced a figure, then claimed of 7,640. When an offer to purchase the premises in their damaged condition was received from Mr Thomas Bernard Dobbin for the sum of 7,500 it was unequivocally recommended by Mr Mairs to Messrs Tughan & Co for acceptance. [As tennis player John McEnroe would say, Mr. Hall, "You can't be serious!"] There is no written record available as to who authorised acceptance of Mr Dobbin's offer. [Ha! Ha! Ha! How utterly convenient Mr. Hall! The reason for this could be the fact that Mr. Dobbin never did make such an offer, and you know that too!] In any event a Contract was completed [No, Mr. Hall, a legal Contract could not be completed simply because Freddie was not mentally equipped to sign a contract] for the sale of the property to Mr Dobbin and a Conveyance to him was executed on 2 April 1974. [Why then has this sale been accepted as legal, when, 1. Mr. Dobbin never did make such an offer to purchase, and 2. Freddie was incapable of giving his legal consent to such a sale?
This property was allegedly sold to a Mr. Dobbin on April 2nd 1974.
According to the fraud squad, it was a solicitor, Mr. J. Morris and not Tughan & Co, who made out two conveyances, one between Dobbin and Freddie and one between Dobbin and solicitor Morris himself. According to the fraud squad, solicitor Mr. Morris 'bought' this property. This was totally unethical and illegal, but as the reader will see there was nothing ethical about what was to follow either. This Mr. Dobbin had to be 'invented' into this 'sale' in order to provide a smokescreen for corrupt solicitor Morris.

I feel that even at this stage in the story I should make the reader aware that none of the evidence resulting from the later 3 year investigation by the RUC Fraud Squad into this whole sordid affair was allowed to be made available to the High Court Judge. The blocking of this evidence was achieved by collusion between the senior officers of the RUC, the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Official Solicitor. This was a perversion of the course of justice on a truly massive scale. Tughan & Co kept a very low profile during this 'sale' of Freddie's Little King Street property. Solicitor Morris was used to test the water as it were to see if the deal could be done and Morris was rewarded with a very profitable deal. Buy for little and sell for as much as possible. Of course others may have had to be paid a commission. When Hall made his lying Comprehensive Report to the High Court Judge, he felt secure enough to use Tughan & Co and so cover for Morris because more deals had been done in the meantime and he was in a position to control all 'eventualities'. Official Solicitor Hall's decision to cover-up for solicitor Morris is criminal. Tughan & Co's decision in allowing Hall to cover-up of solicitor Morris using their firm's name to assist that cover-up is also criminal. The BIG question in all of this is why a senior Judge, when he appointed F Brian Hall to the position of Official Solicitor, caused Hall to report directly to the High Court Judge at all times and caused the Master (a sort of junior judge) who normally is the 'legal step' between the Official Solicitor and the High Court Judge to be made redundant. In other words, a senior Judge removed a very important link in the chain of protection which was required by law to protect vulnerable people like my brother, Freddie, from the corruption of people like Hall. That senior Judge has some very important questions to answer.

7. It is clear from the evidence available [No, Mr. Hall, only from the evidence you are so economical at presenting. You were very careful NOT to produce the "evidence available", especially the Fraud Squad officer's evidence following their three-year investigation into this whole sick and sorry mess.] that this was a prudent sale transaction. [The sale was not even legal, in fact it was not a sale in any sense of the word. It was a criminal rip-off and now, Mr. Hall, you have become part of that criminal rip-off, and you know that too.] Mr Drennan made no adverse comment about it in his first report and I do not wish to raise any point at this stage. [Yes, Mr. Hall, it is quite a large club.]
Mr Kerr states in his Opinion: "I ... have no reservation in advising that the Official Solicitor should not seek to challenge the sale". [And a club that is growing all the time. I find it so interesting how you, Mr. Hall, have a habit of including back-up in certain decisions. Here you use as back-up, (1) the former Official Solicitor Mr. Drennan and (2) a Mr. Kerr QC. Surely this Mr. Kerr Q.C. couldn't be the present Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, could he???]

8. A separate feature of dealings with the property in Little King Street, however, is the delay in resolving the settlement of the criminal injury claim. It appears that an original payable order was issued by the Northern Ireland Office on 6 October 1976 for the sum of 6.100.11. I am making enquiries of the Northern Ireland Office as to the reasons for the delay in settlement of the claim and I also wish to clarify with Messrs Tughan & Co why there was a further delay in the encashment of the payable order which had been issued. Upon the completion of these enquiries I may have a further recommendation to make to the Court." [I thought this was a "Comprehensive Report" to the High Court Judge, Mr. Hall. Why did you not get all these answers BEFORE you presented your 'Comprehensive Report' to the Judge? It is interesting that you have spent quite a few words on a "delay" involving the Northern Ireland Office and not a word on the criminal activity of those who plundered the estate of Freddie Andrews.]

So, Mr. Hall stated that Mr. Dobbin paid 7,500 to Tughan & Co, but of course he should have said that solicitor Mr. Morris paid 7,500 to Tughan & Co for the Little King Street property. 7,500 plus the NIO award of 6,100.11 comes to 13,600.11 due to Freddie. As the Fraud Squad detective found out, solicitor Mr. Morris was very careful in trying to hide his identity as the real purchaser and Official Solicitor Mr. Hall covered up for fellow solicitor Morris by lying even to the High Court Judge.

The 'sale' of Freddie's Little King Street property was not in itself wrong at the time if there was a pressing need for money to either repair some defect in Tara House, replace a defective household appliance or improve the quality of living of either mother or Freddie. Otherwise it was a little premature, as long as the proceeds of this sale were put into an account in Freddie's own name for the future upkeep and maintenance of "Tara House" and/or the other items mentioned above. What was totally and criminally wrong was not only that the people who caused the Little King Street property to be sold, were not the trustees appointed by my father in his will, but the next seizure and sale of Freddie's property made the sale of the Little King Street property absolutely meaningless as far as Freddie was concerned, totally at odds with the wishes of Freddie's father and blatantly criminal by all those involved in its sale. Where did the proceeds of this Little King Street 'sale' go? In the light of all the other 'sales' of Freddie's property, there has to be a question over the value placed on this property in Little King Street. Solicitor Morris who did the conveyancing and, it seems, the valuation, was in no way interested in Freddie's interests.

A list of documents follows in as near chronological order as possible.

It must be borne in mind when reading these documents that the RUC Fraud Squad Officers, during their three-year in-depth investigation, discovered that Bernard Dobbin WAS NOT involved in the purchase of Freddie's property 3-5 Little King Street.

The Fraud Squad Officers found that solicitor John Morris criminally made out two contracts, one between Dobbin and Freddie Andrews and another between Dobbin and himself, John Morris. There is a very interesting item in this letter which touches on this fact and which I will be commenting on further down this page.

Despite what Official Solicitor Hall stated here, NO MEMBER of our family knew that Freddie's premises at 3-5 Little King Street were being prepared for sale.




This account which I retype below is allegedly for work done to 3-5 Little King Street on February 19th 1973 but the bomb damage did not occur until September 17th 1973, see here. Who authorised this work? Was this work actually carried out and was it carried out on Freddie's premises, 3-5 Little King Street? My father died on July 14th 1972 and here was one of the properties he had given Freddie being secured with temporary boarding just seven months later. If such securing had been necessary my father would have seen to it. He died suddenly of a heart attack and had been working and alert up to the end. Although there is no heading on this document and it is unsigned, this account appears in the list of another document further down this page, again on an unheaded, unsigned and undated document (except for the year 1979). However, if you can slightly enlarge this blackened copy you will just be able to make out the reference at the top left of the page which is BW/VT. This BW can be seen on most of Tughan & Co documents and undoubtedly stands for Bertie Wright otherwise solicitor Herbert Wright of Tughan & Co.

Account dated 24th May 1973 and addressed to:

Mr. F. Andrews, Jnr.,
14 Castlehill Road,
Knock, Belfast.

Feb. 19 1973 To temporary boarding and securing premises at Little King St.

Labour - 335.60
Material - 265.70

Total - 601.30

Statement sent 5/7/73
Letter and statement 6/9/73.

This amount was obviously charged to Freddie's account and without the knowledge of Freddie's family. This money was therefore debited illegally and was the beginning of a pattern which was to escalate in value over a period of years.



According to this letter dated 21st November 1973 which I retype below, estate agents McConnell, Martin & Co gave H. M. Blamphin instructions to visit, inspect and survey the bomb damage to Freddie's property at 3-5 Little King Street.

Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co.,
Estate Agents, Valuers & Auctioneers,
9 Upper Queen Street,
Belfast BT1 6FB.

For the attention of Mr. Mairs.

Dear Mr. Mairs,

Criminal Injury Claim
3/5/Little King Street.



As requested, I have visited these premises and measured approximately the work necessary to repair the bomb damage.

I estimate that the cost of repairs would be about 8,700.00, excluding professional fees; these would probably be about 10%, so making the total gross cost of repairs 9,550.00 approximately.

The property appears to have been old and in only fair condition, it is therefore reasonable to assume that a deduction of between 10% and 20% would be made. Taking the worst case of a 20% reduction for betterment, then the total compensation would be 7640.00 if reinstatement costs were to be accepted as the correct basis upon which to calculate the compensation.

I trust this information is satisfactory and sufficient.
Perhaps you will let me know if the claim is to be settled on a "market value" basis or if I will be required to carry out any further work.

Yours faithfully,

H. M. Blamphin.



As you can see from this letter retyped below, Mr. Mairs stated: "... we were asking 14,000 for the property prior to the bomb blast ... ". I wonder how much solicitor Morris or whoever ended up with this property sold it on for. The bomb blast was such a useful coincidence. The building, as Mr. Blamphin stated above may have been old, but after the government-funded repairs it would have been a lot newer.
Remember that the Fraud Squad discovered that Mr. Dobbin was not involved in the 'sale' of Freddie's Little King Street property, therefore on that evidence, Mr. Mairs is making a completely false statement to solicitors Tughan & Co.
Significantly, the claim for compensation from the Northern Ireland Office was handled by Mr. Burgess who was also a senior member of the Law Society. Now take a good look at the subject reference on the letter below. As you can see it reads, "3/5. Little King Street, Andrews & Others to Dobbin." Not only was Dobbin not involved in this criminal sale, but who were the "Others"? This Little King Street property belonged solely to Freddie and was Freddie's for the very distinct purpose of being capable of providing Freddie and Freddie alone with security for the upkeep of Freddie's income when needed and the upkeep and maintenance of Freddie's home Tara House. So on this evidence McConnell, Martin & Co were very involved with Tughan & Co in the criminal theft of Freddie's property. The "Others" referred to above by Mr. Mairs is definitely not any other member of our family and since Mr. Mairs knew there were "Others" involved, why did Official Solicitor Hall state in his Comprehensive Report to the High Court Judge MacDermott, "There is no written record available as to who authorised acceptance of Mr Dobbin's offer." How very, very remiss of Mr. Hall and how very, very convenient for him given his corrupt involvement in this sick, dirty affair.

Letter from estate agents McConnell, Martin & Co to Tughan & Co dated November 29, 1973.

Dear Sirs,

RE: 3/5. Little King Street, Andrews & Others to Dobbin.



A Mr. Thomas Bernard Dobbin, 522 Falls Road, Belfast 13, has offered 7,500 for the premises as they now stand following the bomb blast, [This was not true, according to the RUC Fraud Squad Officer who was shot dead.] with our mutual Clients taking the benefit of the criminal injury claim. We would be pleased to know if in fact a sale can take place on this basis and if it would not hinder the malicious damage claim. It has not yet been ascertained whether this will be a market value less site value or a reinstatement claim.

We enclose herewith, copy of letter from H. M. Blamphin, Quantity Surveyor, which was sent to Mr. Burgess who is handling the criminal injury claim. [Please note carefully and for future reference that Mr. Burgess was involved in the criminal plunder of Freddie's estate from about a year following my father's death. This fact is contradicted by former Official Solicitor Hall in his 'Comprehensive Report' to the High Court.] You will note that Mr. Blamphin feel [Should read "feels"] that we should obtain approximately 7,500 under reinstatement.

Market value: we were asking 14,000 for the property prior to the bomb blast and would estimate the site value to be 7,000 therefore, our market value claim would be in the region of 7,000. With our market value being the lesser of the two figures this would be our claim. We feel, therefore, that Mr. Dobbin's offer of 7,500 is very satisfactory.

Mr. Dobbin would agree to a completion at the 31st January 1874, [Again, this was not true.] and his solicitor is John Morris, [Nor this.] Esq., 1. Lombard Street, Belfast 1.

We await hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

R. Mairs

DESMOND McCONNELL, MARTIN & CO.



Tughan & Co in this following letter is sending the Contract and Documents of Title to John Morris on behalf of "Andrews-to-Dobbin, 3/5 Little King Street, Belfast". In the first place Tughan & Co was working to the instructions of Charles Gilpin who stole Freddie's deeds. Tughan & Co did NOT have a proper title to 3/5 Little King Street. Mr. Dobbin was not the purchaser of 3/5 Little King Street and solicitor John Morris did not represent Mr. Dobbin. Tughan & Co including Mr. Burgess, knew all this but played this game of charade to make the whole thing look legal. Mr. John Morris, solicitor, only used Mr. Dobbin's name for his own legal protection and was the purchaser of 3/5 Little King Street - or was he?

Letter from Tughan & Co to solicitor John Morris dated 21st December 1973 about seventeen months after the death of my father. These people would not have dared to interfere in this way had my father still been alive.

Dear Sirs,

Andrews-to-Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street, Belfast.

We understand from Messrs. Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co., that you are acting on behalf of the Purchaser in respect of the above premises. Accordingly we enclose herewith Contract together with the Documents of Title as set out on the enclosed Schedule one copy of which please sign and return by way of receipt. [Of course, Tughan & Co knew that Dobbin was not the Purchaser and that Morris was either the purchaser himself or the 'holding agent' for Freddie's premises. Tughan & Co knew that they were enclosing a criminally illegal contract using stolen Documents of Title.]

Yours faithfully,
TUGHAN & CO.



As you can see here this document is personally signed by solicitor John Morris and dated 28th December 1973.

(Reference)

BW/YR/A.9

Frederick Andrews Junior.
Sale of 3/5 Little King Street. Belfast.

RECEIVED from Tughan & Co., Solicitors, 30 Victoria Street, Belfast the under-mentioned Deeds and Documents which we undertake to keep safely and return upon demand.

1. Fee Farm Grant plus one copy Fee Farm Grant dated 11th August, 1920 Belfast Corporation to Samuel and William James Gibson.

2. Copy Probate of Samuel Gibson deceased dated 25th April, 1944.

3. Copy Double Probate of Samuel Gibson deceased dated 15th November, 1945.

4. Registry of Deeds Search dated 10th April, 1946 Kevin O'Kane.

5. Conveyance dated 1st April, 1955 Kevin O'Kane, John A. O'Kane, Hugh P. O'Kane and Brian B. O'Kane to Lyness Brothers Limited.

6. Conveyance dated 24th December, 1959 Lyness Brothers Limited to Frederick Andrews Junior.

7. Copy Negative Search 1923-1946 Samuel Gibson & Ors. 1942-1946 William J. Johnston. No. 233/1945

8. Negative Search from 23rd January, 1907 to 31st March 1923 No.1346/1945.

Dated this 28th day of Dec., 1973.

Signed John Morris



In this letter below, Tughan & Co would seem to be 'leaning' on John Morris who would seem to be having second thoughts about what he was getting into. Nearly two months had passed since Tughan sent Morris the stolen Title Deeds and Tughan was impatient for a reply. Tughan's "client" Gilpin was probably leaning on Tughan, or should I say Burgess. Again Mr. Dobbin's name is used as the prospective purchaser.

Letter from Tughan & Co to John Morris dated 11th February 1974.

Dear Sir,

Andrews-to-Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street, Belfast.

With reference to our letter of 21st December we shall be glad to receive the Contract signed by your client by return.

We understand from our client that they have receive [Should read "received"] further offer for the premises and if the Contract is not forwarded for their acceptance then we are instructed to ask for the return of the Title Deeds.

Yours faithfully,
TUGHAN & CO.



Solicitor Morris responded immediately in this following letter of 13th February 1974. What a response! Read this following letter from Morris to Tughan & Co.

Dear Sirs,

Andrews -to- Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street

I enclose herewith deposit of 750.00 with Agreement to Purchase duly signed by Purchaser.

On receipt of copy of accepted Contract I will arrange for the balance purchase monies to be lodged on Deposit Receipt in our joint names until such times as the Deed of Conveyance is executed.

Yours faithfully,

John Morris

Morris sent Tughan & Co a " ... deposit of 750.00 with Agreement to Purchase duly signed by Purchaser". The purchaser was not Mr. Dobbin so Morris had to be the person who signed this Agreement to Purchase. The next sentence really does jump out of the page. "On receipt of copy of accepted Contract I will arrange for the balance purchase monies to be lodged on deposit Receipt in our joint names until such times as the Deed of Conveyance is executed". Now isn't that something, "... in our joint names ...". Now read the next letter....





That same day 13th February 1974, Morris wrote again to Tughan & Co enclosing the contract " ... which I omitted to enclose". Imagine, a practising solicitor sending 750.00 which had to be his own money since everybody was lying about Dobbin buying the property and he 'omitted to enclose' the signed Agreement to Purchase. He really must have been stewing over this sordid little deal.

Letter from John Morris to Tughan & Co dated 13th February 1974.

Dear Sirs,

Andrews -to- Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street

Further to my letter of today's date I enclose Contract which I omitted to enclose.

Yours faithfully,

J. Morris.



One week later, solicitor Morris wrote to Tughan & Co seeking the signature of the vendor on the Conveyance he enclosed with his letter. Tughan & Co/Burgess/Wright knew that the title Deeds relating to 3-5 Little King Street were stolen. They also knew that the 'vendor' was not Freddie Andrews. They knew that the 'vendor' was Charles Gilpin. They also knew that Charles Gilpin had no authority to sell 3-5 Little King Street. They also knew that Freddie Andrews could not legally sign any document. They also knew that they were acting for Charles Gilpin and not for Freddie Andrews. They also knew that Freddie Andrews could not sell any of his properties without proper legal protection. Morris, as the RUC Fraud Squad found out, was not acting for Mr. Dobbin but was actually using Dobbin's name to act for himself at this stage anyway.

Letter from Morris to Tughan & Co dated 20th February 1974.

Dear Sirs,

Andrews -to- Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street

Further to my letter to you of the 13th instant in the above matter I enclose herewith engrossment of Conveyance for signature by vendor, with Requisitions on Title in duplicate to be answered and returned to me. I also enclose original Conveyance dated 24th December, 1959 - Lyness Brothers Limited to Frederick Andrews, Junior for comparison purposes. Please acknowledge receipt.

I am in a position to complete at any time.

Yours faithfully,

J. Morris.



How, as Tughan & Co write in this following letter, could the Contract be accepted by the 'vendor' when neither Freddie who owned the property nor Freddie's family had any idea of what was going on.

Letter from Tughan & Co to John Morris dated 27th February 1974.

(Reference)

BW/YR/A.9
JM/AEC [Again the BW means the letter writer is Bertie (Herbert) Wright]

Dear Sir,

Andrews -to- Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street

With reference to your letters of 13th and 20th February we enclose herewith copy of the accepted Contract.

We are at present having the Conveyance executed and will be in touch with you as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

TUGHAN & CO.



In the following letter, with no heading and no signature, you can again identify the writer from the reference at the top left of the page, namely BW/HM A.9., the BW being Tughan & Co solicitor Bertie (Herbert) Wright.
The letter was addressed to mother at Tara House and not Freddie since Wright/Tughan & Co/Burgess knew that Freddie had no knowledge of what was going on. These corrupt people therefore knew that Freddie's signature was of no consequence in law and therefore useless in a contract of this nature. This letter as you can see is, however, begun, "Dear Mr. Andrews", namely Freddie. This may be a mistake and may have been meant to read "Dear Mrs. Andrews". There is no mistake when Wright asks that the Conveyance be signed by Freddie which is absolutely criminal. Even worse is the fact that solicitor Wright wants the document returned to him and he would see to the witnessing of Freddie's signature. What sort of people work in the office of Tughan & Co?
Please also note that in previous letters the title of the letters was "Andrews - to - Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street", the title of this letter is "Sale of 3/5 Little King Street. The name of Mr. Dobbin was kept secret from my mother.

Letter from Tughan & Co to my mother dated 7th March 1974.

(Reference)

BW/HM A.9

Mrs. M. Andrews,
14 Castlehill Road, Belfast, BT4 3GL.

Dear Mr. Andrews,

Sale of 3/5 Little King Street

I enclose herewith the Conveyance in respect of the above sale and will be obliged if you will have it signed by Freddie at the top of the third page where I have indicated in pencil. If you will then return it to me I will see as to the witnessing.

Yours sincerely,

Unsigned.

What a carry-on! By asking my mother to have the Conveyance signed by Freddie indicates that Herbert Wright/Tughan & Co/Burgess were very well aware that Freddie was handicapped and unable to deal personally with this document.
How could this signature be witnessed without the person signing being present and being seen to sign his name - even though Freddie's signature was worthless given his handicap?
Also, it seems to me to be a bit late to be looking for Freddie's signature on 7th March 1974 when in the previous letter from Tughan & Co/Wright/Burgess dated 27th February 1974, Tughan & Co/Wright/Burgess had already sent the "...accepted Contract" to Morris.



In the following letter from McConnell, Martin & Co to Tughan & Co, Mairs states, "We enclose herewith account for repairs to the above following the bomb blast, from N. K. Kelly...". Here you can see for yourself from this account that N. K. Kelly is alleged to have carried out the specified work on 3.7.73 and charged Freddie 330.00 but 3.7.73 was approximately two and a half months BEFORE the bomb blast which occurred on September 17th 1973!

Dear Sirs,

Re:Andrews to Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street, Belfast.

We enclose herewith account for repairs to the above following the bomb blast, from N. K. Kelly, an account from H. M. Blamphin, and account for advertising the above property and our account for commission. We would be pleased if you could arrange to have these accounts paid to us.

Yours faithfully,

R. Mairs.

DESMOND McCONNELL, MARTIN & CO.



This letter from McConnell, Martin & Co would indicate that they considered they were not charging Freddie enough for helping to steal his property from him and added a bit more on to the account.

Re: Andrews to Dobbin. Little King Street, Belfast

Consideration 7,500.00

Fees 162.50 267.50

V.A.T. 16.25 26.75

178,75 294.25

V.A.T. Reg. No. 252 2346 85



This letter is from solicitor John Morris to Tughan & Co dated 27th March 1974.

Dear Sirs,

Andrews -to- Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street

Further to your telephone conversation with my office I enclose herewith cheque for 6750.00 being balance purchase monies due and computed as follows:-

Purchase price. 7500.00
Deposit paid 750.00

6750.00

This cheque is sent to you on the following undertakings:-

1. Engrossment of Conveyance and any outstanding title and token keys to be handed to Bearer;

2. True certified copies of Memorials of prior Title with necessary Affidavits to be furnished;

3. Any outstanding Requisitions to be answered;

4. Apportionment Account as at 1st April, 1974 to be furnished;

5. Hand Search up to date of registration of Deed to my Client to be furnished;

6. Transaction to be completed in all other respects as per Contract.

Yours faithfully,

John Morris.



This following letter is from Tughan & Co to John Morris dated 28th March 1974.

Dear Sirs,

Andrews -to- Dobbin 3/5 Little King Street.



Thank you for your letter of 27th March enclosing your cheque of 6750.00

We confirm we handed to the bearer of your letter the executed Conveyance in favour of your client together with prior Title in our possession and certified copy Memorials as referred to in the Contract.

We are at present awaiting an Apportionment Account from Messrs. Desmond McConnell, Martin & Co., and will forward this to you as sooon as possible. We have also been in touch with Messrs. Desmond McConnell Martin & Co., regarding the keys for the premises. They inform us that there are no longer any keys in existance and in view of the damage which the premises suffered the keys are not necesary.

Please let us know as soon as the Conveyance in favour of your client has been registered so that we may arrange for Search to be completed in accordance with the contract.

Yours faithfully,

TUGHAN & CO.,



This account from Tughan & Co to Freddie is truly a violation of every code, every work ethic and every moral standard any sane person can think of.

From Tughan & Co to Freddie dated 23rd April 1974.

You -to- Dobbin Sale of Little Ding Street, Belfast.


TO FEE under Solictors' Remuneration Act 1881 and amending Orders made thereunder to cover all work done in connection with the above including instructions, letters and attendances, deducing Title, preparing Contract for sale, having same executed by you, perusing Requisitions on Title and answering same, approving draft Indenture of Conveyance and having engrossment thereof executed by you, completing and for all miscellaneous work in connection therewih, save out-of-pocket expenses.

Consideration 7,500

Professional Charges 146.56

Outlay 162.50

VAT 30.91

Total 339.97

At the bottom right hand corner you can see Tughan's stamp and within the stamp are the words, "Paid by deduction, 23/4/74". There is an initialled signature but I cannot identify it.

Here is the biggest legal practice in Belfast, whose senior member Mr. Burgess a top member of the Law Society of Northern Ireland is directly involved in Freddie's property. This firm knows that Freddie is unable to understand what is going on. Neither Mr. Burgess nor anyone else in this firm took the trouble to alert other members of our family to what was happening. Of course Herbert Wright sent a letter to my elderly mother who was about 77 years of age at this time and who would not know either what was going on. This firm stole 339.97 out of the money they received for Freddie's property to cover all their 'work' in this fraudulent transaction as you have seen in the above letter, stating untruthfully that Freddie had executed the Contract and engrossment when he had not. In addition they took their commission for their trouble. This is criminal corruption most base.

Did you notice that they called Freddie's property "Little Ding Street"?








What this letter is all about I do not know. You will have seen this account dated 24th May 1973 for 601.30 being asked from Freddie in the first letter within the blue lines for "temporary boarding and securing premises at Little King St." Just over one year later solicitors Elliott Duffy Garrett sent this letter to Tughan & Co.

For the attention of Mr. Wright

Dear Sir,

Ultra Homes Limited and Frederick Andrews

We refer to our telephone conversation with you about this matter and would be obliged if you could inform us whether or not your Client is prepared to make payment of the account due in this matter.

If payment is not to be effected through you we would be obliged if you could inform us whether or not you have authority to accept service of the writ which we propose to serve in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

For ELLIOTT DUFFY GARRETT.

You will see in this statement which I will refer to again further down this page, this same amount of 601.30 being taken out of Freddie's money which was received from solicitor John Morris (no mention in this account of Mr. Dobbin's name!!!) for the 'sale' of 3/5 Little King Street, but in this statement prepared by Herbert Wright of Tughan & Co it was due to "Ultra Homes Ltd for fencing". So, again I ask, who really got this work done and to whose property. There was no need for fencing or temporary boarding or securing of premises in February 1973.



Tughan & Co would seem to be reluctant to pay this bill from Elliott Duffy Garrett dated July 8th 1974.

Dear Sir,

Re: Ultra Homes Limited -and- Frederick Andrews

We have had a number of telephone conversations about this matter and since we have not heard from you as a result of these we would now be obliged if you could inform us whether or not your client is prepared to make final payment of the account due in this matter. If payment is not to be effected we would be obliged if you could inform us whether or not you have authority to accept service of the Writ which we propose to serve in this matter.

Yours faithfully,
for ELLIOTT DUFFY GARRETT

H. Coll.

It seems from this reluctance on the part of Tughan & Co to pay this bill that they are really reluctant to seek payment from my mother since they knew that there was no point in asking Freddie for the money. With the impending Writ to be served something had to be done as the bill does not seem to have been Freddie's responsibility. As you will see Tughan & Co did pay this amount of money but not until 1979 - see here. By this time Freddie's affairs were under the control of the Official Solicitor Drennan and Tughan & Co should have had not been allowed to take any money out of Freddie's estate as was the case.









A letter from Tughan & Co to Elliott Duffy Garrett dated September 19th 1974.

For the attention of Mr. Coll.

Dear Mr. Coll,

Ulster Homes Limited -and- Frderick Andrews.



As arranged on the telephone we enclose herewith our cheque for 601.30 to discharge the amount due to your client.

Yours faithfully,

TUGHAN & CO.



Please read this letter and the following two accounts, all from McConnell, Martin & Co to Tughan & Co carefully.

Dear Mr. Wright,

RE: Little King Street, Andrews -to- Dobbin. [In the first place Freddie Andrews was not selling his property and neither he nor my mother nor any solicitor could give permission to sell it. Secondly, Mr. Dobbin was not buying Freddie's property. This whole 'deal' was being perpetrated by and between two firms of solicitors, Tughan & Co and John Morris.]

We enclose herewith, our commission account for the sale of the above property [There was no sale. There was a criminal theft of property which was taken from the mentally-handicapped man who owned the property, a man who was not aware of what these gangsters were doing. The 'payment' for this fraudulent deal was taken out of Freddie's estate of course] together with an account for the expenditure on same due to a bomb blast, [This is totally out of order to put it mildly. As you will see below, the account for what McConnell, Martin & Co stated was the 'expendature due to bomb blast' was work alleged to have been done on 3.7.73, but the bomb damage did not take place until 17.9.73!] and also an account for advertising the property. [This property did not need to be advertised and probably was not advertised since the covert nature of the 'deal' would have been interfered with and exposed if it had been advertised.] We would be pleased if you could arrange payment of these accounts.

There will also be a fee to be charged for our negotiations regarding the bomb damage claim and we will be forwarding this in due course.

Yours sincerely,

R. Mairs.










You will see in the above account that McConnell Martin & Co stated that a For Sale board was erected on 16.8.73 at a cost of 18.50 plus VAT, but at the top of this page at paragraph 6 of Official Solicitor Hall's Comprehensive Report to the High Court, Hall stated, "..... a "For Sale" board was erected at the premises on 16 September 1973 - the day before the explosion." So who is telling the truth?



This letter is from Elliott Duffy Garrett to Tughan & Co dated 15th January 1975.

Dear Sirs,

Ultra Homes Limited -v- Frederick Andrews.

We refer to our letter of 2nd October to which we have not yet received a reply. We would be obliged if you would confirm whether or not you are prepared to pay the sum suggesed by us for cost. [I thought this was paid on September 19th 1974, see above letter.]

Yours faithfully,
for ELLIOTT DUFFY GARRETT

H. Coll.



This letter is from McConnell, Martin & Co to Tughan & Co dated 15th January 1975.

Dear Mr. Wright,

Re: Sale of Little King Street: Andrews to Dobbin.

Further to our letter of the 11th ult., in which we enclosed our commission account together with outstanding costs, we wonder if you are now in a position to have these accounts discharged.

Yours sincerely,

R. Mairs.
















Official Solicitor John Drennan was first charged by a Judge of the Supreme Court with the responsibility of Freddie's estate on 11th January 1979. However, as can be seen on all official references to Freddie's case, this case is specified as follows: "IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516", which means that Freddie was put in the 'Care' of the Court towards the end of 1978, I think November 1978.

This following statement was therefore put together by Tughan & Co while Freddie was in the 'Care' of the Supreme Court! Therefore, the Office of the Official Solicitor was aware that, (1) solicitor John Morris was involved in the 'sale' of 3-5 Little King Street, (2) that McConnell Martin & Co sent Tughan & Co an account which included repairs allegedly to Little King Street for bomb blast damage when the date on the account for the repairs stated 3.7.73 which was two and a half months before the date of the bomb blast on September 17th 1973. The money against the name of solicitor Morris is also on this 1979 account. Why? Was Freddie's property not really sold at this time. Was this just a 'dry run' to see if the perpetrators could get away with it? This lends credence to this letter dated 13.8.1985 from the Office of Care and Protection to me which stated that "... I understand that, with the exception of the house at Castlehill Road none of your brother's properties has been sold". So what exactly did the Official Solicitor, Tughan & Co, John Morris, Charles Gilpin, the RUC, McConnell, Martin & Co etc all get up to?

















































With the help of solicitor Morris, Charles Gilpin and Tughan & Co accomplished this 'sale' without the knowledge of Freddie's family. Now the way was clear for them to take a bigger step in their take-over.