Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

My letter to the Office of Care and Protection at the Law Courts dated 7/7/1985.

Dear Mr Chambers
I don't think I made it clear enough in my previous letters to your office that Mr C Gilpin and his solicitor had no mandate to act for Freddie.
My father left all, as he thought, secure, in the hands of our family solicitor Boston & Sullivan. Freddie did not, nor could he, ask to change solicitors. This move meant that Mr C Gilpin, by informing my mother that our family solicitor was no good, had access to all Freddie and my mother owned.
Do you, Mr Chambers, in all honesty believe this entrepreneur and his cohorts would have been so "concerned" with Freddie's "welfare" if Freddy had not had such a large and valuable estate.
No legal representative of any stature would have allowed Freddie, knowing his incapacity, to sign any document that even left him without a home. Freddie has no proper title to 4 Norwood Gdns. He did not buy this house. Mr Gilpin and his estate agent McConnell & Martin did the deal. They even took their pound of flesh by giving all his valuable carpets and curtains away.
Why was Mr Hall allowed to employ an estate agent and barrister who were allowed to speak without interruption except for much prompting from Mr Hall, in order to fight against the interests of my brother?
Why did Mr Hall allow his estate agent to say that "everyone leaves their old carpets." We would like your office to inform Mr Hall that my father did not have old carpets and curtains?
Why has Mr Hall since taking over treated not only Freddie but the whole family with utter contempt? Why is he allowed to wite libelous statements about members of our family? Is this intended to confuse, in order that it will take the heat away from the guilty? Is this the picture he gave to the Judge and the Police?
Will you inform Mr Hall that our name was held in the highest esteem in the business world for over 100 years and we will not stand by an allow Mr Hall to destroy it. Surely no one will give Mr Hall many marks for ignoring the fact that Mr C. Gilpin and his cohorts came into our home in order to bamboozle an old woman then 78 years of age and her mentally handicapped son.
Why does Mr Hall not give the Judge the true facts? Why does he wish to take part in the ruthless denial of Freddie's basic human rights? Why did Mr Hall find it necessary to put us through the expense of a Court case which was not in Freddie's interest?
Mr Hall's barrister and estate agent were not employed to protect Freddie. Will Mr Hall again use the same tactics by employing the same estate agent to say "the price was right", therefore denying Freddie the right to re-possess all the other property my father gave to him.
It's a clever idea, but by doing this Mr Hall is being the good samaritan to all but Freddie. The price, no matter what Mr Hall says or whoever he employs to say , does not make an illegal transaction legal.
What is the use of Dr Lyons, his colleague and a senior member of the Law Society, stating to the Police that Freddie would have no knowelege or understanding of what he was signing if Mr Hall can ignore these eminent public figures?
Why did Mr Hall tell the income tax Office some months ago that all would be fixed up in a month? How can he give the true facts to this office when no income tax figures were available for over seven years? No movements of money or transactions were available. I informed the income tax that I understood it was criminal to give wrong information to them. How can Mr Hall give the true facts when he doesn't even know what property Freddie owns, by putting on paper that Freddie did not own the odd numbers in Frencis Street?
Why did Mr Hall say that he would have a further Court hearing, in a month after the last. We will not be present in the Court if we are expected to sit through a charade in order to witness everyone being protected but Freddie.
All transactions made on Freddie's behalf must be made null and void. Mr father's wishes for his son must be complied with.
We put Freddie into care in order to have all his properties and his home returned plus massive compensation. Why is your office not making sure this is done? Will someone do the honourable thing to protect this one mental patient from further abuse by Mr Hall?
We thought all patients were entitled to protection from the Courts. Why is Freddie, after over seven years, still not getting this protection?
A copy of this letter will be sent to MIND, Harley St, Police, Press and my legal representative who in now working on Freddie's behalf, and of course, Dr Lyons.

Sincerely,
(Mrs) Eileen Wright.


Site map and contents