Dear Mrs Wright,
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516
Thank you for your letter of yesterday's date which I received this morning and which I have considered carefully. In dealing with such a long document it would have been helpful if you had used paragraph numbers, as I have requested in earlier replies, but I will deal with all the substantial points which you have raised by reference to the numbered pages in your letter.
1. Written submissions.
On the first page of your letter you have asked, again, about the invitation to submit written details of all matters to be brought to the attention of the Court. As stated in paragraph 1 of my letter of 27 June I confirm that the Judge himself, Mr Justice MacDermott, gave that specific direction at each of the hearings mentioned in my last letter. While acknowledging that you have now sent me 2 detailed letters, dated 25 June and 29 July, I am bound to declare that both of them contain many statements of your own personal feelings and suspicions, many assertions of your belief as to critical events affecting the Patient's property (and also that of your mother), criticism of many people involved with the case over a number of years but unfortunately very little, if any, new information or documentary evidence. [Come now, Mr. Hall, make up your mind on this very serious matter. Did I, or did I not, make a statement containing new information or documentary evidence? In your totally biased opinion was there new information or documentary evidence in my letters? Even just a little? If there was very little as you state, why was it not referred to the Court. Then, of course, you have set yourself way up above the Court, haven't you? You actually make the judgements for the Judge, what he should hear and what he shouldn't hear.] While I have attempted conscientiously to deal with all substantial questions raised by you I am bound to explain to you, as I have already done months ago to your solicitor, that I cannot engage in protracted correspondence in relation to speculative comments or questions - for the very reason about which you have rightly expressed concern in the third paragraph on page 9 of your letter, that it would be wrong to incur further substantial costs in dealing with such matters which could only be recovered out of the Patient's own estate. I believe that I will soon be able to report to the Court upon the successful recovery of all substantial claims which may be made on behalf of the Patient but I cannot spend more time embarking upon speculative proceedings unless you have specific information to offer to me. [You know, Mr. Hall, that you never had any intention of recovering ALL substantial claims made on behalf of the Patient. You have, above, just called my substantial claims against those who have stolen my mentally handicapped brother's property 'personal feelings, suspicions, assertions and criticism'. Just who do you think you are, Mr. Hall? You called the recovery of our family home which my father put in Freddie's name "speculative proceedings". Let me tell you, Mr. Hall, that in this instance you are so right. Such proceedings would have been "speculative", even highly "speculative", simply because they would have carried a terrible risk, but the risk was one of exposure to you and all your gang involved in this shocking case.]
2. Messrs Tughan & Co and Mr Gilpin.
You have indicated once again the keen concern felt by you, and I may assume by other members of your family, about the extent of Mr Gilpin's involvement in the management of the Patient's affairs and property in the period following your father's death in July 1972. In paragraph 5 (on page 3) of my report to the Court dated 30 January 1984 I attempted to summarise briefly my understanding of the circumstances in which the affairs not only of the Patient but also of your mother, Mrs Minetta Andrews, came to be transferred into the hands of Messrs Tughan & Co - where they were dealt with by Mr Herbert Wright. [You only "attempted to summarise briefly your 'understanding' of the circumstances in which the affairs not only of the Patient but also of your mother, Mrs Minetta Andrews, came to be transferred into the hands of Messrs Tughan & Co - where they were dealt with by Mr Herbert Wright"? According to you, Mr. Hall, this was a COMPREHENSIVE Report to the High Court and this word "transferred" is the key to my mentally-handicapped brother's whole case. Your 'understanding' of these circumstances is just not good enough when you are blinded to the fact that my late father's private safe was stolen from our family home by the people you have identified, and with that safe went my late father's private documents. In addition to that these unscrupulous people forced, and I use that word deliberately, my late father's solicitors to hand over, illegally, whatever private documents that were held there in our family names. This is the conduct that I have been complaining about for years. This is the conduct that you, Mr. Hall, are using the power vested in your Office to cover up and even make legal.]It may now be impossible to discover what motivation lay behind these arrangements but I would ask you to accept that the consequences of that transfer of responsibility will be fully examined by me and by senior and junior counsel engaged on behalf of the Patient before the present proceedings have been concluded. [You, Mr. Hall, already know the motivation behind that transfer which was greed and I will never accept that the consequences of that transfer will be put right, even though you may examine them fully, because you simply have no intention of ever having those consequences put right.]I referred in paragraph 4 of my letter of 12 June and again in paragraphs 4 and 5 of my letter of 27 June to the claim which is being made on behalf of the Patient against the firm of Tughan & Co and Mr Herbert Wright. I have also indicated that those proceedings will lead to the recovery of all moneys for which the defendants may be accountable, including interest and costs.
[No, Mr. Hall, you actually made those proceedings a shocking sham, and used them to misinform, cheat, lie and pour more money into the pockets of legally sick people.]
3. 14 Castlehill Road.
I regret that you do not yet understand the legal principles which applied to the sale of the Patient's dwelling-house at 14 Castlehill Road and, indeed, to his other property in the period before a Committee was appointed by the Court to manage his affairs - pursuant to the Order made by the Lord Chief Justice on 11 January 1979. This central feature of the case must, I believe, have been discussed with you by your solicitors and counsel. While I can appreciate your reluctance to accept the implications of the relevant legal principles (because of the apparent injustice, as you see it, which is produced by their application) I must ask you to reflect upon the even more serious consequences [Yes, Mr. Hall those consequences, FOR YOU AND YOUR GANG, would, and will yet, flow and I would be very pleased to have helped to see you being made responsible for your despicable actions.] which would flow from any attempt on my part to institute speculative proceedings, as you have urged me to do, to recover the title to the family home and the Patient's other properties at Little King Street and Winetavern Street. [Who, Mr. Hall do you really think you are? Do you think I am so stupid, even at 83 years of age, to swallow such garbage of lies? Our family problem following my father's death was simply that there were NO LEGAL PRINCIPLES applied to the 'sale' of my mentally-handicapped brother's property. If there had been legal principles applied to 14 Castlehill Road, our family would not have had to go to Freddie's psychiatrist for advice as to what to do to put a stop to its 'sale'. Then when the visit to Freddie's psychiatrist resulted in the Court taking over Freddie's affairs we thought that would sort it all out. On the contrary, we then had to get the help of the Fraud Squad because even the Court appointed Official Solicitor actually went along with, and continued, the plunder of Freddie's property. The Fraud Squad officer who found actual criminal activity pushed the case and ended up dead with a shot-gun wound to his head. This is what you are covering up, Mr. Hall.]
4. I think that the fundamental misunderstanding which you have is highlighted in the first paragraph on page 5 of your letter in which you suggest that the purchaser of 14 Castlehill Road did not acquire a proper title. It may assist you if I explain that a bona fide purchaser can acquire a valid title to property for which he has paid a fair price unless it can be proved that he had notice of the vendor's incapacity at the time of the transaction. [Actually, Mr. Hall, your fellow-solicitor Mr. Jemphrey, who 'bought' Freddie's home, did not pay a fair price at all for 14 Castlehill Road despite you and your gang working so hard to convince the Judge that he did as you will see here. That makes all your blethering in this paragraph a lot of hot air and nothing but a red herring. Wouldn't you agree?] The legal position can be summarised briefly by saying that a contract made by someone suffering from mental incapacity is not void but voidable. My own conclusions (and those of Senior Counsel from whom I took advice) are set out in paragraphs 7, 9 and 12 of my report.[Another red herring, Mr. Hall but one that will be enlarged on later.
In fact, let us have a little look at the 'seizure and sale' by Tughan & Co (Herbert Wright) of the Patient's property at 60/65 Smithfield Square, Belfast. Remember that the Little King Street property was 'seized and sold' by another corrupt solicitor called Mr. Morris to himself - no, that was not a typing error - Mr. Morris, with the permission of Tughan & Co and later F. Brian Hall, 'seized and sold' the Little King Street property belonging to Freddie Andrews to himself sometime in April 1974. Corrupt solicitors Tughan & Co (Herbert Wright) 'seized and sold' Tara House to corrupt solicitor GP Jemphrey sometime in February 1976, one year and ten months after the 'seizure and sale' of the Little King Street property. According to this County Court case, Herbert Wright (of Tughan & Co), 'seized and sold' Freddie's property at 60/65 Smithfield Square, Belfast "between the 1st day of August 1979 and the 31st day of January 1980" even though the deeds of that property were at that time in the 'safekeeping' of the first Official Solicitor to become Freddie's Committee - Mr. Drennan. This was four years after the 'seizure and sale' of Tara House. The 'seizure and sale' of the Little King Street property was where Charles Gilpin and Tughan & Co dipped their toes in the mire as it were to see if they could get away with it. So careful were Tughan & Co to not be seen in the mire that they somehow got solicitor Morris to do their dirty work for them. Even F. Brian Hall never let on to the High Court Judge that there was a Mr. Morris involved in that 'deal'. Of course by then it was January 1984 and Hall felt safe enough to blatantly lie to the Judge as can be seen in his 'Comprehensive Report' at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 where Hall never mentioned the name Morris. It was the RUC Fraud Squad who found out this information, information Hall never let near the High Court Judge.
Not even the Patient's family knew that the Little King Street property had been 'seized and sold'. Gilpin and Tughan & Co then went for the reason of my father's purchase of the commercial property in Smithfield in Freddie's name - Tara House. If they could get away with the 'seizure and sale' of Tara House, the way was then clear for them to get their hands on the money that the 'seizure and sale' of the Smithfield property would bring in and there would be no Tara House to need that money for its upkeep and maintenance. Hall even got the assurance of a Mr. Kerr QC who is now the present Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland on this 'seizure and sale' of Freddie's and my mother's home when he stated at paragraph 9 of his Comprehensive Report, quote: "Mr Kerr states in his Opinion "One can be unequivocal in stating that [the sale] was undoubtedly in his [the Patient's] best interests". You cannot get a higher or more hollow judgement than that. Gilpin, Tugan & Co and Herbert Wright 'seized and sold' Tara House for a pittance to Law Society solicitor Jemphrey, dumping my mother and Freddie in an almost derelict slum of a place.]
5. I have had 2 telephone conversations with Mr R V Galloway who is the Northern Ireland Secretary of the National Schiziphrenia Fellowship - on Wednesday 6 June and Monday 25 June when I had the opportunity to explain the legal position to him. On both occasions he accepted the general explanation which I gave of the legal principles involved in contracts effected by or on behalf of persons suffering from mental incapacity and expressed himself to be satisfied with the implication of those principles in your brother's case. In my second telephone conversation with Mr Galloway I acknowledged that I had sent a copy of a letter which I had addressed to him on 7 June, confirming our telephone conversation of the previous day, to Mr Peter D Robinson MP and apologised for any apparent discourtesy in doing so without informing him (Mr Galloway). I did not misquote Mr Galloway in my covering letter to Mr Robinson (of which, I believe, you may already have received a copy). In both my telephone conversations with Mr Galloway he has accepted the effect of the legal principles which apply to all the transactions which have been effected on behalf of the Patient in this case. The point, of course, is also considered in detail in the reserved judgment given by the Judge at the final adjourned hearing on Tuesday 28 February - of which you have also received a copy.
6. Property at Francis Street-Vesting Order.
On 27 January last I received a letter from Miss Sullivan (of Messrs James Boton & sullivan) [Should read [(of Messrs James Boston & Sullivan)] enclosing a letter dated 25 January 1984 addressed to you by Mr J Russell of the Department of the Environment, Roads Service - Belfast Division, although at that time Mr McCracken of Messrs John Johnson & Son was still acting as your solicitor. After making enquiries of Mr Deane (of Messrs Alex Murdoch & Deane) I spoke by telephone to Mr Russell on 2 February and confirmed that the reference in a statutory Notice which had appeared in the local press, dated 16 December 1983, to properties including Nos 1-23 Francis Street had been made in error. Mr Russell acknowledged that the properties affected by the proposed Vesting Order will include only those premises which lie on the south side of Francis Street whereas Nos 1-23 lie on the north side of Francis Street. I sent a confirmatory letter on that day to Mr Russell and sent copies of it for reference to Mr. McCracken representing your interest and also to Miss Sulivan from whom I had received the original communication.
7. Discussion with Detective constable Patterson.
While standing in the Central Hall of the Royal Courts of Justice on the morning of Friday 2 December, where we were waiting for the adjourning hearing fixed for that day to be called, I took the opportunity to speak to you and to Detective Constable Patterson in regard to a letter which you had sent to me dated 21 November. In my reply dated 24 November I explaind why, at that time, it was not possible for me to engage in direct correspondence with another solicitor's client. [!!!] You had enclosed with your letter a document which you described as "the Police Report" and although I had already received a copy of that document from your solicitor, Mr. McCracken, with a covering letter dated 7 November I was concerned to establish its status and origin - ie the purpose for which it had first been prepared and the person or persons involved in preparing it. Mr McCracken had been unable to assist me with those questions and when we met in the Central Hall I gave an unambiguous indication of the serious view which I took of some of the contents of the document. You immediately acknowledged that it was not "a Police Report" but rather a summary or note of points which you had personally discussed with the Police. The warnings which I expressed informally on that occasion are still relevant and I urge you to take account of them.
8. Claim against Mrs Minetta Andrews.
During another conversation with you, Mr W J Andrews and Mrs Douglas, and Miss Sullivan, in the central Hall we discussed the steps which might tbe taken to pursue the claim which may be made on behalf of the Patient against your mother which is referred to in paragraph 33 of my report. In that paragraph I acknowledged the difficult choice which faces me as Committee in contemplating any such proceedings and this was a central feature of the conversation which I had with you, your brother and your sister.
It is my earnest wish to avoid any step which may cause distress to your mother - apart from a proper concern to minimise legal costs for all parties. For that reason I sought (and still seek) an opportunity to have discussions with legal representatives of all members of the family with a view to compromisiong any such claim. The point is dealt with in paragraph 2 of my letter of 27 June. I regret that you have not responded to the enquiry made in paragraph 12 of that letter. You had mentioned in you letter of 25 June that you were sending a copy of that letter to your mother's solicitor. Please let me know the name and address of the solicitor who may now have accepted instructions to represent her interests. [Mr. Hall is SO anxious to be able to 'contact' our legal representatives.]
9. Investigation of criminal offences.
I regret that you take the view, expressed in the second paragraph on page 9 of your letter, that I have not investigated the Patient's affairs "in an open and lawful manner".
You have urged me, once again, to report "crimes and frauds" to the Police and to the Court. I believe that I have done so and I have referred to the point fully in paragraph 7 of my letter of 27 June.
10. Sources of information.
I also regret that you should feel that in the course of my investigations I have relied upon infromation obtained from "vultures and other discredited sources". Apart from the initial enquiries made in this case by my predecessors (Mr Drennan and Mr Rankin) which are described in paragraph 2 of my report the subsequent paragraph contains a full account of the further enquiries which I made in the period commencing at the beginning of last November. That section of my report shows clearly that much of the basic information which I relied upon was derived from correspondence and papers found on the departmental file in the Office of Care and Preotection (including many letters addressed to the former Master, Mr J K Davis, by you) and also from discussions with officials in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I subsequently undertook extensive correspondence with the other persons and firms mentioned in that pararaph of the report and obtained detailed factual replies to all the questions which I had raised. [Factual Mr. Hall? You are joking of course!] The files containing those replies were (and are) available for production to the Court (or to the Police) at any time. Your former solicitors (and counsel) and the legal representatives of Mr W J Andrews and Mrs Douglas are aware of the specific questions which I addressed to Messrs Tughan & Co and to Mr Herbert Wright. The most significant responses to those questions were obtained by me in the course of a long meeting with Mr Wright and 2 of the present partners in that firm on the evening of Thursday 17 November last. Immediately following that meeting I prepared a detailed note, running to 15 pages, which has been accepted as an accurate record of all the significant information communicated to the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions and I have no reason to believe that any other significant or relevant information has been withheld from me. [Who do you really think you are kidding, Mr. Hall?] All of that information has been placed before the Court. [This is exactly what I and other members of my family have been trying to expose for years, Mr. Hall. You colluded with thee conspirators in this dirty fraud and now by your own admission this conspiritorial cover story has been presented to the High Court Judge as factual evidence. Bully for you.]
11. I am sorry that, once again, you make the assertion that I have withheld "many important and relevant facts". I do not think that much purpose is served by an extended exchange of such assertions by you and repudiations by me. I suggest, therefore, that if you are unable to provide further factual information or docuentary evidence bearing upon the Patient's affairs which has not so far been produced to the Court the best course may be for you to come before the Court, either personally or through an accredited legal representative, at the next hearing to express the points which you wish to make.
In conclusion I urge you, once more, to let me know the name and address of your mother's solicitor.
F BRIAN HALL.