Dear Det. Con. Patterson,
On Friday 2nd Dec at the Law Courts I was told by my Solicitor that Freddie was to have returned to him his showroom and ground. I was given no explanation whatsoever why this disclosure was made at this time. Are we now to be eternally grateful for this revelation that should have been apparent to Cleaver Fulton & Rankin - at least four years ago?
We are inclined to feel that this was only a sop and this great "prize" expected to gag us until the next hearing and make us feel that they are at last attempting to work in Freddie's interest. We do not accept the reason given by Miss Sullivan to Billy that the £35,000 paid for Freddie's showroom and ground by Mr C Gilpin was now supposed to be rent paid in advance.
Have we still to listen to this garbage from these so-called custodians of the Law? Is this the information they are feeding to the Judge? Is there any way we can show our displeasure at the mishandling of this case and to make absolutely sure the Judge is made aware of the true facts? Why are these Solicitors working for themselves rather thatn for their mentally handicapped client? Why is this collusion still existing among Solicitors and totally against our wishes and beliefs?
What other untold revelations may e be expected to hear when they have managed to get their heads together in the two months prior to the next hearing?
We are puting all our faith and trust in your hands Mr Patterson and of course your colleagues who are the only force anxious to see justice done and truth prevail.
Could you please find out for us:
(1) Who was the rent agent for this showroom?
(2) Who signed the agreement and in whose Estate Office did this take place?
(3) Who fixed the rent?
(4) How long was the lease? Has it now run out so making this property available to Freddie the lawful owner?
(5) Was there ever a rent review?
Will Freddie receive interest on the £35,000 deposited in the Industrial Bank and what about Income Tax?
Why have we not been allowed to discuss the sale of Tara House? Both our Solicitors' heckles rise to fever pitch if we dare to mention this valuable piece of property which my father left to Freddie long before his death. Is it because the occupier is a fellow Solicitor? Why is he given more protection than the true owner? We feel that the present 'owner' Mr Jemphrey has access to the Courts and full compensation should be paid by the person who sold this house illegally to him. He must have been aware that this property was much more valuable than the price paid. Why was Counsel's advice not taken by Mr Jemphrey? My brother had to go through these legal channels when Mr C. Gilpin suggested that he should buy Freddie's showroom. He did this openly and above board by seeking Miss Sullivan's advice and of course Counsel refused the deal.
[I think there should be another page but it is not in my file at the moment.]