Dear Mr Steele,
Thank your for your letter of the 24th May '84.
You, Mr. Steele, emphatically state that it is not correct to say that the Official Solicitor cannot be approached without a solicitor. It may not be correct but after conferring with my brother and sister who are as committed to the truth as I am insist that this is what we were told.
On one of the two occasions when we were asked into Mr. Hall's office to listen to him complaining about the work he had to do and also to hear him talking (not discussing) about such trivial matters as to the small expenditure in the running of the house such as bins, milk etc he had to be surrounded by two social workers and our two solicitors whom we certainly did not ask to attend. So again Mr. Steele I have to correct you on this point and insist you have been mis-informed.
You also say that you understood that I had been invited by the Court on several occasions to submit written details of any other questions.
If you could locate this member of the Court who made this remark I would be extremely pleased to make his acquaintance.
I heard these same excuses made by Cleaver, Fulton & Rankin. Fortunately I kept copies of my letters to them and was able to hand them over to the Fraud Squad.
It's a very degrading situation when one has to watch the legal profession grasping at straws in order to deny a mental patient his basic human rights - the rights to the property his father gave to him in 1960, long before his death in 1972.
Since getting involved with the legal profession I have learned some very sore lessons and one is to keep copies of all correspondence so as to enable the Fraud Squad to be aware of every movement of the case. I do not wish to leave any loopholes for the Old Boys Cameraderie to hide beind - something I have found them to be very good at!
The main reason I wrote to you was because I did not get a reply to a list of question sent to Mr. Hall in November '83. This convinced me that Mr. Hall meant what he said and that we must not approach him without a solicitor. In fact he took it upon himself to tell Detective Constable M. Patterson of the Fraud Squad and myself off quite firmly for talking together in the Law Courts. Neeless to say I felt like a naughty schoolgirl.
I am also amazed that you should involve the Chancellor in this scandal especially when he could not have been given the true facts of the case. You could have had the courtesy of asking the opinion of the family before putting forward statements which are totally untrue.
Would you be good enough, that is if you can locate the member of the Court who wishes me to submit questions, to forward the following to him as I am not aware of who he is:
Is Freddie's showroom and ground being disposed of to the Ryland Vehicle Group? I understood the Ryland Vehicle Group were taking action against the Toyota-led Neville Johnston (Mr. C. Gilpin).
Will this sale, if it takes place, (without the knowledge of the family) stop the case being proceeded with?
Also is Freddie's ground in Francis Street for sale?
[Important questions]Where were, and who had, the deeds of these properties? Why did Cleaver, Fulton & Rankin not investigate and trace the deeds in the three years they had control of Freddie's affairs and why was his signature accepted on these documents?
You keep insisting I should appoint a Solicitor but the family have no desire to return to the Court to witness Mr. Hall and his Barrister denying my brother his basic rights. I am in no rush to get a solicitor. We never again wish to see such a travesty of justice.
I will as per usual send copies of your letter and my reply to Police Headquarters, to Mr. P. Robinson MP, and to Mr. Galloway who is chairman of a Mental Health Association.
(Mrs) Eileen Wright.