Report of the VLPS trip to London

A delegation of members from the Irish Victims of the Legal Profession (VLPS) drawn from across the 32 counties of Ireland are travelling to London on Thursday 19th July 2007 to get the spotlight of the Irish Media in London upon the many obstacles faced by the VLPS in Ireland.

The delegation will be meeting with Victims of the Legal Profession in London and surrounding areas, who have been deprived of their property and inheritance in Ireland by the Irish Legal and Judicial System.

The delegation will meet with Journalists from the Irish World, Irish Echo, Irish Post and any other interested newspaper and media groups in London and surrounding areas.

The VLPS in Ireland have found it almost impossible to get the truth exposed in the Irish Media in Ireland, that very many Irish & Ethnic Minorities throughout the length and breadth of Ireland have been deprived of their property and money by corruption, fraud, and perjury, etc, in the Irish Legal System.

The delegation will especially highlight the plight of Tom Kennedy, an innocent hard-working farmer over 70 years of age who has been wrongly imprisoned due to a false court order. Tom Kennedy is in prison for occupying and trying to carry out his farming duties on a farm of land he bought from his older brother in 1972.

Tom Kennedy has copies of the bill of sale, receipts for the money paid by cheque to his brother, but due to the land not being registered in his name at Land Registry, the Executors of his late brother's estate have evicted Tom Kennedy from the farm of land he had been farming for the past 30 years.

Tom Kennedy refuses to purge his contempt for not obeying an order not to occupy his own land which is a gross denial of both his Irish Constitutional Rights and his European Human Rights. He has now spent the past four months in jail and currently in Limerick jail.

Other cases from VLPS members in Ireland that will be exposed include:

John Gill, Newmarket-on-Fergus, County Clare

John McMahon, Castleblayney, Monaghan

Daniel & Elva Gallagher, County Donegal

Dan McCaffrey, Omagh, County Tyrone re legal problems in Mallow, County Cork

Joe Ferris, Omagh, County Tyrone

After 7 years of peaceful demonstrations in Ireland by the VLPS, exposure of the truth has largely been ignored by the Irish Media here in Ireland. The "oxygen of publicity" from London and the wider world will fuel the demand for publicity and justice for members of the VLPS in Ireland.

Sir Hugh Orde (Chief Constable of the PSNI) has recently been quoted in the Irish News as saying that the "money-sucking lawyers" were causing serious extortion in the cost of the Bloody Sunday Tribunal. The Celtic Tiger may also become an endangered species due to the "legal vultures" in the Republic of Ireland or perhaps more correctly stated as 'Rip-off Ireland'.

Victims of Irish Legal Profession Delegation to London and surrounding areas:

The delegation travelled to London on Thursday 19th July 2007 and met with many people with family connections back home in Ireland who expressed grave concerns due to having suffered extremely negative personal experiences of Irish Solicitors, Irish Barristers and Irish Judges. Many people described how members of their family back home in Ireland were often spending ‘years and years’ involved in ‘legal nightmares’.

John, originally from Wexford, but has lived the past 60 years in England commented that his personal experience of English Solicitors was very good to excellent. However, he had heard ‘nothing but bad reports’ about Irish Solicitors. The main things that people were tortured with included, ‘long delays in getting any legal matters sorted out’, ‘legal work that would take weeks in England would take many years in Ireland’. Getting deeds for property was very difficult in Ireland. Long delays in getting wills sorted out and almost impossible to get replies from telephone calls and letters. In many ways he said the ‘ways of the Irish Legal System is the way not to do any business never mind important legal business’.

Michael Mescall described how his dream of having a retirement home in Kilrush was stolen from him in a contrived court case in Kilrush in 2006. Michael is a native of Kilrush and bought and purchased a property in 1961 and intended to renovate the property for a retirement home. He used the property for storing some antique and sentimental furniture and an antique pump along with many other artefacts. Despite his continued use of his property as described, an extremely wealthy person, Mrs. Bridgette Brew-Quinn from Galway was able, with what Michael described as ‘a pantomime of a court case’ condoning and rewarding Fraud, Perjury & Corruption, to deprive him of his property. The full facts can be downloaded from www.crookedlawyers.com.

The people in the Irish Centres were ‘stunned’ with the newspaper articles and the website information. The delegation highlighted the need to celebrate the success of www.crookedlawyers.com and www.rate-your-solicitor.com explaining that there has been over one and a half million hits on the latter website. VLPS members in the London and surrounding areas were extremely enthusiastic stating, "The campaign of VLPS must include getting the property that was stolen by one or more members of the legal profession in Ireland returned to the rightful owners. The VLPS must have the truth exposed, especially to prevent younger people becoming victims of the Irish Legal Profession all over again".

Catherine (a young person with family in Cork) explained how her Grandmother back in Cork was having serious problems trying to get the Title Deeds to her farm of land in County Cork. On a trip to Ireland she helped her Grandmother (on the advice and good recommendations of people she trusted) to get a ‘good solicitor’. However, there has been no progress and compared with her own personal experience of solicitors in England. This so called ‘good solicitor’ in Cork, who was described as ‘trustworthy’ is very short of the mark as far as dealing promptly with correspondence, and especially after speaking with the VLPS delegation and browsing the newspaper articles and details from the www.crookedlawyers.com Catherine stated, "I am having serious second thoughts and feel guilty and responsible or to blame for perhaps just getting my Grandmother out of the frying pan and into the fire".

Many of the people in the Irish Centres were as already mentioned, ‘stunned’ by the newspaper articles, the newspaper article describing the ‘legal nightmare’ of Theresa & Vincent Toolan (which was also featured in RTE Prime Time). Many people, especially in the Irish Centres were shocked that the ‘legal nightmare’ which included a 10 year delay in ‘probating a will’ was caused by a solicitor who was none other than a brother of Mary Robinson, the esteemed former President of Ireland and now having a very high profile and prominent position within the United Nations dealing with human rights throughout the world. This was described as a ‘shocking indictment and serious embarrassment’ for the good name of Ireland throughout the world. "Totally unacceptable" was how one elderly gentleman described it.

It was most beneficial for the success of the delegation that the Irish Times on Saturday 21st July 2007 had reported the ‘legal scandal’ that some Irish Solicitors involved in representing Irish Soldiers who received compensation for deafness had been found guilty of ‘forging’ the signatures of the ‘Irish Soldiers’. The ‘Forged Signatures’ on the back of the compensation cheques enabled the solicitors involved to then pay the compensation money directly into their (the solicitors) own bank accounts. The solicitors involved then deducted a further amount from the compensation money for each Irish Soldier despite having been paid their full legal costs by the Irish Government. "Robbing and ripping off the Irish Tax Payer", "Double-Charging", "Rip-off Ireland" were frequent comments.

Round Table Discussions, Delegates and VLPS members in London and surrounding areas.

A stimulating discussion involved the incredible contrast between the case of Michael & Zofia Mescall as described earlier and that of Tom Kennedy. A wealthy person living in Galway was able to ‘steal’ the Kilrush property in 2006 that was bought by Michael Mescall in 1961 using in some very strange interpretation of ‘adverse possession’. Tom Kennedy had bought the farm of land from his brother in 1972 he was in possession ‘actively farming’ the land for over 30 years and has spent the last 5 months in prison for ‘refusing to purge his contempt’, ‘refusing not to farm his own land’. Quite apart from having ‘possession’ from buying the farm of land Tom Kennedy had also 12 years plus 12 years and 6 years of ‘adverse possession’ yet he is in prison. One conclusion drawn was that the lack of comparability in these two cases could only be explained as ‘one law for the rich or those with Irish legal connections and lesser law for the ordinary person or those without Irish legal connections’. John Gill described how Judge Olive Buttimer told Waterford Circuit Court that she was ‘putting Tom Kennedy in jail for his own safety’. This was described by all as a ‘shocking state of affairs’ and incredible indictment that the Irish State cannot protect/guarantee the safety and well-being and uphold the constitutional rights of the individual citizen such as Tom Kennedy.

Mr. John Gill presented a letter from a former worker at a ‘Rubber Factory’ in Donegal. The contents of this letter were extremely disturbing and distressing. The letter was also accompanied with a letter from Damien Tansey Solicitor in Sligo who had replied to the Law Society graphically describing that this ‘Rubber Factory in Donegal’ had operated without ‘Insurance’ and for this reason his client was not entitled to any compensation. The very serious damage to his health is so severe and has resulted in ‘being completely unfit for any type of work’. The person mentions in his letter the unbelievable delay of over 5 years to get the letter from Mr. Tansey that the ‘Factory had no Insurance’. Why did it take Mr. Tansey 5 years to find out something which should have been established within a few weeks? Michael Mescall described this ‘Rubber Factory in Donegal operating without Insurance’ as being ‘in breach of all European and Employment Law’. Every employer must have ‘Public Liability Insurance’. If this ‘Rubber Factory’ was operating without ‘Public Liability Insurance’ as described to the Law Society by Mr. Damien Tansey Solicitor this can only be a ‘National Scandal’ and ‘International Scandal’ of monumental consequences for the Irish State.

Zofia Mescall described that from her research and comparison with other countries in her opinion the Irish State appeared to have very good laws. It may well be that the law is there but it is not being applied or there is flagrant disregard for the law by those who are primarily charged to uphold the law, i.e. solicitors, barristers and judges. The fact that there is such an organisation as the Victims of Irish Legal Profession proves that there is something seriously wrong with the Irish Legal and Judicial System.

Michael Mescall described his wide experience of employment and property law in United Kingdom. He has never experienced any ‘bizarre decisions’ as happened in his case in Kilrush. The court found against him and yet at the same time ‘costs had to be paid’ by the opposition who ‘won’ or rather ‘stole his property’. The Plaintiff Mrs. Bridgette Brew-Quinn's solicitor Michael Nolan of Toler, Kilrush in a letter to Michael Mescall's solicitor Mr Desmond O'Brien had stated that Michael Mescall was "mentally confused" without even a shred of evidence for this "defamatory and derogatory remark". Michael Mescall explained "this was a deliberate attempt to destroy my character and credibility with Solicitor Desmond O'Brien so that this Solicitor would be put off from taking my case". Michael described the court case in Kilrush as something akin to ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

John Gill provided details of a telephone call from a person in Castlebar who mentioned that there were thousands of people in Britain of Irish Descent who have been intimidated by solicitors, barristers and the Irish Judicial System. This intimidation by the Irish Legal and Judicial System has deprived these people of their inheritance, with nowhere to go for help apart from contacting and trying to get help from our group Victims of the Legal Profession (VLPS).

Michael Mescall explained that the VLPS should view themselves and rightly so on the same side as the Gardai and PSNI and Police Forces throughout Britain and the Civilised World. In that a very important strategy is to ‘Prevent Crime’ and ‘Expose Corruption’, Ken Murphy representing the Law Society in the ‘Prime Time Video’ was only providing a PR exercise and ‘covering up’ the ‘Crimes of Solicitors’ and is not enthusiastic in ‘Exposing Corruption, Fraud and Perjury’ within the Irish Legal System.

Zofia Mescall explained how her research had established that ‘Clare County Council’ had paid ‘Millions of Euro’ to ‘One Firm of Solicitors’. Zofia suggested that ‘every County in Ireland’ should establish the number of people within that county who are ‘Victims of the Legal Profession’. Collate together all the ‘Victims’ in each county as a ‘Network and Resource for Each Other’. It is very important to be aware of the ‘Mental Torture’ and how it affects each ‘Individual, Family and Community’. ‘It is very important to have ‘Local Contacts for Support’.

Delegates enjoyed a short break in the beautiful countryside of Buckinghamshire, High Wycombe on a guided tour by Michael Mescall, including a visit to ‘Hughenden Manor’ the ‘Stately Home of Queen Victoria’s trusted Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who lived there from 1848 until his death in 1881, an era of ‘Imperialist Foreign Policy’ which gained Queen Victoria the title ‘Empress of India’.

The delegation considered that there are many similarities in Ireland today in that very many ‘Solicitors, Barristers & Judges’ could be described as ‘Living in Stately Homes’. They could be described as the ‘Modern Day Adventurers’. Daniel Gallagher described these ‘Stately Homes’ whether in ‘Queen Victoria’s Time’ or now as ‘A Disgrace’ in that ‘It shows how these people had/have no ‘Social Conscience’ and were/are living in Luxury’ and the ordinary decent people are doing all the hard work. ‘The Young People’ trying to buy their ‘First Home’, the ‘Farmer trying to make ends meet’ and many others hardworking ‘Ordinary Decent People’ are being ‘Ripped Off’. In the case of the Legal Profession in Donegal, many are described as ‘among the largest Land Owners in Donegal’ and ‘Not a Single Person to his knowledge in Donegal’ can specify a single example of these same ‘Legal Professionals ever buying a Blade of Grass’.

Joe Ferris described the ‘Manor or Castle on the Hill’ in which Kevin McGuigan & Christine Meyler a husband & wife team of solicitors live in Omagh. Daniel & Elva Gallagher described their ‘Impressions of having been shown this particular ‘Stately Home’ as a ‘Spectacular House’. The delegates considered that it would be ‘Financially Impossible’ for a ‘Solicitor in Northern Ireland’ to be able to ‘afford such Opulence’. The delegates viewed an extract from the WRIT January 2007 (the newspaper of the Law Society in Northern Ireland). A section of the Key Themes from the Speech by James Cooper President of the Law Society on page 17 stated, ‘Further the Taxing Master suggests that the average employed solicitor should earn about £35,000 a year. The reality is that in comparison with our sister professions, we, as practising solicitors in Northern Ireland, have slipped remorsely down the earnings’ ladder’ (James Cooper, President Law Society Northern Ireland, January 2007). If the solicitors in Northern Ireland are earning very modest salaries, how can they afford such expensive ‘Stately Homes’? The comments at the many discussions were that if this was any ordinary person in the Republic of Ireland, the person would be investigated by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) and in Northern Ireland by the replacement body for the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA).

The CAB & ARA have seized the assets of people who in Ireland and abroad who have purchased these assets as a result of ‘Criminal Activity’ and the persons concerned could not provide ‘Visible Means of Income conducive to their lifestyle’.

Joe Ferris also identified Mr. Declan Rodgers solicitor from a photograph on page 17 of WRIT January 2007 and provided the following article:

Lawyer stole from dead, 11/02/2000 by Staff Reporter ‘Irish News’

A SOLICITOR has been given a suspended jail term after admitting stealing almost £140,000 from the estates of dead clients.

Sean Magee, from Greenan Road in Newry, admitted the offences at Downpatrick Crown Court.

He was struck off by the Law Society when details of the fraud emerged in 1997.

A Society spokesman said Magee would have to reapply for entry but would face "considerable hurdles" if he ever considered practising again.

Magee, whose practice was based in Dunmurry, outside Belfast, pleaded guilty to three charges of theft.

Prosecuting Counsel Ken McMahon QC told the court that Magee stole £74,000 from the estate of an elderly client named Patricia Murphy.

Magee, who was also forced to resign from his position as part-time chairman of the Independent Tribunals Service, claimed he had fulfilled the last will and testament of Ms Murphy by bequeathing the money to the Missionary Society of St Columba in Co Meath and the Salesians of Don Bosco.

However an investigation revealed he stole most of the money and gave only £7,000 to the charities.

The court also heard that Magee presented Ms Murphy’s family with a bill for over £5,000 for handling the estate.

The prosecution detailed how Magee stole more than £60,000 from the estate of another client, Eric Storey.

Magee was instructed to invest the money in an offshore bank on the Isle of Man on behalf of a nephew who lived in New Zealand.

Instead all but £10,000 went towards Magee’s firm.

The offences came to light in 1997 when an executor of the Murphy will noticed discrepancies.

In mitigation Magee’s counsel said all the money was paid back, with interest, within two months of the offences coming to light.

Magee, who was told he had betrayed the trust placed in him by clients, was sentenced to concurrent periods of two years imprisonment, suspended for three years on each count.

Joe Ferris provided a copy of letter from Mr. Declan Rodgers Solicitor dated 4 July 2006, which included the following statement, ‘One of the enquiries relates to an issue of right of way for a single house on the adjoining land and the use of this route for the purpose of driving cattle, etc which we would ask you to deal with, by appointment with Sean Magee of this office’ .. Yours faithfully, Rodgers & Co.

The non-custodial sentence for Sean Magee solicitor was compared to a report in the Hammersmith & Fulham Newspaper July 2007, which stated, ‘Right to Buy Fraudster Banged Up’. Shamed Abdul Khair tried to dupe H&F Council into selling him a swish Fulham Palace Road property by pretending to be eligible for the popular right-to-buy scheme. Blackfriars Crown Court heard how Khair, 40, posed as a bona-fide tenant in an attempt to scoop a £16,000 discount.

Joe Ferris also provided key details of the ownership dispute of the Ferris ancestral home. Beginning with the death of his great grandmother Anne Ferris in 1925 (who was the last registered owner). His grandfather Charles Ferris then farmed the lands and acted as absolute owner from 1925 until his death in 1945. In 1985 the estate of Charles Ferris (deceased 1945) was administered by Bridget Ferris & Joseph Ferris (aunt & uncle of Joe Ferris). Bridget Ferris, Joseph Ferris & Joseph Harding provided detailed ‘Land Registry Affidavits’ in 1986 stating specifically that their father Charles Ferris who died in 1945 had acted as absolute owner of the ancestral home (corroborative affidavit by Joseph Harding).

On this basis Bridget Ferris & Joseph Ferris had applied to Land Registry in October 1986 to be registered as full owners of the ancestral home. Charlie Ferris (father of Joe Ferris) engaged the services of James Montague Solicitor, Omagh and at a County Court hearing in Omagh on 30th May 1989 the application by Bridget Ferris & Joseph Ferris was dismissed in favour of the ‘written objection’ of Charlie Ferris (father of Joe Ferris).

Charlie Ferris (father of Joe Ferris) had also been informed by a Mr. Walker from the Land Registry in Belfast that ‘as long as the written objection by Charlie Ferris was lodged at Land Registry in Belfast’ the property that made up the ancestral home could not be ‘registered without notification’ to Charlie Ferris.

In June 1989 Charlie Ferris (father of Joe Ferris) received a letter from James Montague (solicitor) dated Wednesday 21st June 1989, which stated: "Could you possible (sic) call with us on Thursday to execute a Form of Consent in relation to the registration of the lands the subject of the dispute. It is important that you see us on Thursday as the Judge will be sitting on Friday but will then be absent for a number of months until the start of the new session in September".

Joe Ferris accompanied his father to this appointment, which was early the following week. At this appointment, Mr. Montague explained that there had been an offer of settlement: "It is hereby agreed between the parties that the lands in Folio No. 2974, County Tyrone, be registered in the names of both Bridget Ferris and Charles Ferris in the following shares as tenants in common: (a) Bridget Ferris as the owner of 7/9 of the lands. (b) Charles Ferris as the owner of 2/9 of the lands. (c) Joseph Ferris withdraws any claim to be registered as owner of any portion of the said lands."

Charlie Ferris (father of Joe Ferris) rejected the offer, however Mr. Montague asked Charlie Ferris to sign that he had been shown the offer and that he (Mr. Montague) would write a ‘letter of refusal’ to Christine Meyler. Joe Ferris asked to have a look at the agreement and after reading the document suggested to Mr. Montague that it would be better to also write across the document ‘offer refused’ or words similar to that effect. Joe Ferris remembers this distinctly due to the words that Mr. Montague used, "Joe is happy now Charlie".

Joe Ferris also engaged Mr. Montague at this meeting in relation to the purchase of his present home in Derry, which was completed in December 1989. Attracta Ferris (wife of Joe Ferris) engaged Mr. Montague’s office in relation to a car accident in 1990 and this was completed in 1991 or thereabouts. Joe Ferris throughout this contact with James Montague enquired on a regular basis as to whether or not there were any further ‘offers of settlement’ and also as to getting the opinion of a barrister. Mr. Montague always stated that there were no further offers and that it was no possible to get a barrister who would be able to give an opinion due to the legal complexities.

Charlie Ferris (father of Joe Ferris) received a letter from James Montague dated 27th January 1993, which states: ‘We think that these matters should now be resolved between the members of the family themselves.’ Charlie Ferris then engaged the service of Pat Fahy & Co Solicitors, Omagh in 1994. Due to ill health of their father, Joe Ferris and his brother Charlie Ferris transacted all the legal business. It was from contacts with Adrian O’Kane of Pat Fahy & Co. that details of the registration of Folio 2974 in May 1994 came to our attention for the first time.

Mr. Adrian O’Kane of Pat Fahy & Co. (Solicitors) explained that James Montague had not handed over the legal file of Charlie Ferris (father of Joe Ferris). This has been a most significant barrier to getting any legal remedy. Charlie Ferris (father of Joe Ferris) died on 9th October 2005 and June 1989 was the last time he had sight of his legal file. In September 2000 Mr. Montague sent a letter to Rodgers & Co Solicitors stating that the legal file for Charlie Ferris had been sent to Mr. Pat Fahy & Co in February 1995. Mr. Pat Fahy & Co. stated that they never received any legal file for Charlie Ferris. This matter was reported to Detective Colin Coyle at Omagh Police Station in 2001 and no later than February 2007. However, the legal file has never been produced. The offices of Mr. James Montague and Mr. Pat Fahy are approx. 100 yards apart, so it is most strange how a legal file can go missing.

Joe Ferris provided information obtained during a search of the Public Records Office in Northern Ireland in late December 2006. The information obtained clearly indicates that there had been ‘fraudulent practice’ by the personal representatives of Anne Ferris deceased 1925. The Oath was sworn by Bridget Ferris & Joseph Ferris on 18th May 1994 and administered by a solicitor in the office of R.H. O’Connor & Co Solicitors, Omagh. The false information proves ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ that this ‘Oath’ was fraudulent and perjorative, as detailed below.

The following extract from the enclosed ‘Oath’ is very significant in relation to the fraudulent and perjorative content as detailed below. Anne Ferris deceased 1925, (c) a widow, leaving Patrick Ferris, John Ferris, James Ferris, Joe Ferris, Thomas Ferris, Charles Ferris, Catherine Ferris and Ellen Ferris her lawful and only children and only next of kin all of whom have since died and without grandchild or other descendant the issue of a predeceased child her surviving, that we are the Administrators of the personal estate of the said Charles Ferris under Grant of Administration dated 12-12-1985 granted forth of the District Registry at Londonderry. The above extract from the ‘Oath’ is incorrect and is at variance with the fact that there were 33 grandchildren of Anne Ferris. Patrick Ferris, who predeceased his mother had issue: 5 sons, Patrick, Thomas, John, Charles & Joseph.

Joe Ferris provided a dictionary definition of perjury: "Perjury is the "wilful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". As this ‘false oath’ was then provided to Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast for the purpose of Bridget Ferris and Joseph Ferris becoming the personal representatives of Anne Ferris deceased 1925. The letter dated 2 January 2007 from the ‘Master Probate Office’ Royal Courts of Justice states: ‘It is impossible for the office to verify the content of each application. Indeed the office is entirely dependent on the solicitors lodging the application to ensure the factuality of the content of the application. The oath document which contains all the relevant detail in relation to entitlement to the grant is a sworn document and as such will be taken by the office as a statement of fact (provided it is completed properly). (Stephen Watson 2nd January 2007).

Joe Ferris provided a letter sent to Probate Office on 6th July 2007, which states:

Senior Probate Officer,
District Probate Office,
The Courthouse,
Bishop Street,
Londonderry,
BT48 6PQ.

Friday 6th July 2007

Dear Senior Probate Officer,

I would be most grateful if you could provide me with the meaning of the following statement, with respect to a member of my extended family who died intestate some years hence.

Deceased a widow, leaving Patrick Ferris, John Ferris, James Ferris, Joe Ferris, Thomas Ferris, Charles Ferris, Catherine Ferris and Ellen Ferris her lawful and only children and only next of kin all of whom have since died and without grandchild or other descendant the issue of a predeceased child her surviving.
What is the precise interpretation of this legal statement? What is the Probate Office definition with respect to the above statement? What is the Probate Office acceptance of fact as specified in the above statement? Do you have any other comments or guidance with respect of the above statement?
Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Joseph Ferris.

Mr. J. Ferris,
14 Alanvale Crescent,
Kilfennan Estate,
L/Derry,
BT47 5SJ.

Letter sent by recorded delivery Friday 6th July 2007.

Joe Ferris provided details of his appeal affidavit as follows: I say and believe that on Friday 30th March 2007, Mr. Dermot Fee Senior Barrister and QC for the Plaintiff was asked by Judge McFarland ‘as to why the estate of Charles Ferris (senior) was not registered in his ownership in 1985’. Mr. Fee explained this in the terms that Bridget Ferris and Joseph P. Ferris had made an adverse ownership and described this as ‘leap-frogging’. It would appear that the letter from Land Registry referred to as (Exhibit M) above clearly indicates that this ‘leap-frogging’ was unsuccessful. The letter from Land Registry then indicates the ‘second application’ and states: ‘Once again, I would point out that this is a totally different application from the one which was referred to the County Court and which was dismissed and which was made some 8 years previous to 1994.’ If Mr. Fee is correct in his colourful explanation of the first application as being an example of ‘leap-frogging’, if it is appropriate to use ‘gymnastic language’, the second application by way of Assent and ‘rebounding’ back to Anne Ferris’s estate and her date of death in September 1925 could be described as a ‘back-somersault’.

Comments provided to Joe Ferris included the ridiculous aspect that if his great grandmother did not have any grandchildren, then Joe Ferris and all his family are ‘non-existent’ to being ‘legally invisible’. Michael Mescall specified that this ‘fraudulent oath’ is a ‘false public record’ and the proper recourse should also include a ‘letter to the PSNI requesting an investigation’. It would be most unusual if this is the only fraudulent oath that has been the basis for the ‘granting of probate’ or ‘administration of an estate’. The PSNI are the proper authority to investigate ‘fraudulent documents’ and it may be appropriate to send a copy of the letter and the response to the website www.crookedlawyers.com

Daniel & Elva Gallagher provided details of their case against Sean McGlynn Solicitor, Letterkenny, County Donegal. The most distressing aspect of the case was the ‘neglect by Sean McGlynn of his elderly client Madge Friel’ in that although she was a very wealthy lady with 8 farms of land and plenty of money in her bank accounts, in the last 6 years of her life she ‘was reduced to living like a pauper in a private nursing home’. Despite many letters to Sean McGlynn as her solicitor, he did not pay the private nursing home fees for his elderly client Madge Friel. Madge Friel did not even have any petty cash for the nice things in life such as ‘a nip of whiskey at bedtime’. After Madge’s death Sean McGlynn did settle the outstanding bills for fees (over 16,000 Euro) and also paid an additional 2,000 Euro to settle the personal debt to the private nursing home for the ‘comfort items’ that they had provided for Madge.

The mental effects for this elderly lady, as someone who was always ‘used to having money’ to now in the last years of her life being ‘penniless’, ‘having no money whatsoever’ would certainly be most distressing. An elderly lady, who had always feared that she would be ‘robbed by people calling at her home’ and always ‘threw her money’ out the window of her home to prevent being robbed, was now ‘robbed in the last years of her life by ‘a white collar criminal’ or as one delegate remarked ‘crooks in suits’. The comment from English VLPS members was that ‘Sean McGlynn should not be allowed to practice as a solicitor’. How can the elderly and vulnerable be protected from an uncaring solicitor such as Sean McGlynn?

The case concerning Dan McCaffrey, relating to his legal debacle involving a ‘stud farm’ in Mallow, County Cork. A letter from his solicitor (who had been nominated by Guinness & Mahon Bank, and Guinness & Mahon Bank had insisted that Mr. McCaffrey must ‘dismiss’ his own solicitor and must ‘appoint’ a particular solicitor to represent Mr. McCaffrey).

The contents of this letter raised very serious issues with respect to this ‘appointed’ solicitor ‘specifying to another solicitor’ that he ‘should lodge a caution against Mr. McCaffrey’s property’ and other ‘extremely detrimental statements’. The English representatives expressed very serious concerns regarding the contents of this letter.

The case of John McMahon, Castleblayney, which can also be downloaded from the website www.crookedlawyers.com produced alarm to all who heard this for the first time. The ‘unbelievable acts of cruelty to the animals’ was described as extremely disturbing. The acts of ‘animal cruelty’ especially the ‘cattle-rustling’ involving the taking of the cows and leaving some of the young calves behind on the farm, who were still ‘very young suckling calves’ was described as ‘a criminal act of cruelty’. The ‘wild-west style’ of ‘cutting the telephone wires’ and ‘demolishing the farm buildings’ whilst animals such as ‘pet cats’ were still inside was described as ‘an horrendous act’ by the English representatives.

John Gill outlined the key aspects of how the firms of solicitors had acted in collusion to deprive him of his property. The legal debacle relating to what should have been a ‘straightforward’ sale of a bungalow in 1994 was the beginning of his ‘legal nightmare’. Delegates and English Representatives were left ‘dumbfounded’ as to how a successful house builder could be declared ‘bankrupt’ without any ‘outstanding debts’ to ‘building suppliers’ or other major financial institutions that would be involved in relation to the purchase of ‘development land’ and other ‘financial undertakings’. The only explanation that could be offered was that ‘key players’, ‘solicitors and others’ involved on behalf of Mr. John Gill had perhaps expected to have received ‘brown envelopes’ for any professional work undertaken.

Mr. John Gill also outlined how the ‘Office of the Examiner’ had been directly involved in ‘depriving him of 250,000 Euro’ and getting this money returned was now his specific focus. The fact that Mr. Gill has been deprived of his ‘livelihood’ for the past 12 years was described as ‘incredible’. The case was described as ‘a collection of Fraud, Corruption, Perjury’ of the worst kind. The English representatives were astounded that Mr. Gill had successfully defended himself ‘72 times’ in the ‘Circuit Courts, the High Courts and in the Supreme Court’. An incredible ‘fight for justice’.

Mark Dunleavy, with family legal problems in Sligo and also involving his brother in Australia, expressed a great interest in getting the ‘Prime Time Video’ transferred into ‘a DVD’ and then this could be posted onto the website, so that it would be viewed by a world-wide audience. Mark also provided an E-mail contact of VILP@PolarEye.com

Vincent Toolan described the circumstances of ‘a veil of secrecy’ that ‘Solicitors’ knew that ‘each person’ was unable or unwilling to tell anyone else’ especially if they ‘got a bad deal outcome’ with a solicitor. The Solicitors could use the old strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ resulting in the solicitor creating ‘one victim after another’ and knowing that ‘nobody was going to mention anything about it’. Now that they know that the VLPS is very active, this is the only ‘effective method of exposing corrupt legal practice and preventing further victims’.

Other important strategies included:
Gathering together sufficient and well-substantiated ‘Case Histories’ for the website, so that the ‘outside world’ is kept fully informed.
Organise further delegations with media advance notice and pre-arranged public meetings.
Distribute further leaflets to all the Irish Centres in Great Britain and throughout the world (this could possibly be achieved by E-mail)
Seek out an (Irish Born) or person with ‘High Profile’ in Irish Affairs in Britain, Ireland, USA, etc.
Meetings in Ireland should involve ‘active reporting’ by the group such as the newspaper article in the Laois Nationalist May 11th 2007 by Joe Barrett and getting this ‘posted onto the website’ so that the ‘outside world’ can keep up to date with events.
Try to focus on getting photographs and DVDs of demonstrations so that these can be posted onto the website. ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’, also the events encourage others to become more enthusiastic in demanding their legal rights, e.g. the return of their stolen property.
Decide what format a book should take, e.g. serialised periodic editions or separate individual stories.
Reflect that it is probably time to take the campaign to a new and higher level, e.g. all government ministers, without ‘fear or favour’.
The slogan ‘You Can Never Improve on the Truth’ could become a very important marketing tool for the VLPS, e.g. on T-shirts and other merchandise. Perhaps with this slogan on the front of the T-shirt and ‘Con & Rob’ on the back depicting the fact that ‘ordinary decent people’ are being robbed ‘behind backs’ by members of the legal profession.

John Gill explained to delegates and English representatives that there is a ‘glaring lack of compatibility’ in how the Irish Legal System responds to people who have had their land and houses stolen by ‘members of the legal profession’ as compared to what happens when a person has their car stolen. Mr. Gill outlined quite a few cases, e.g. a person had their expensive Mercedes car stolen, the car was transferred along a line of criminals and the car was re-sprayed and many alterations and improvements. However, when the ‘car was impounded by customs’ the car registration details, e.g. chassis number was traced back and returned to ‘the original and rightful owner’. All the people involved in any transactions involving the car were subject to the criminal code of ‘knowingly being involved in receipt of stolen goods’. All the persons involved in the ‘stolen car transactions’ had to endure the huge financial loss involved. The same principles of law should apply to the ‘stealing of property from the rightful owner’ by or with the connivance of Irish Solicitors or other members of the Irish Legal System.

Many delegates expressed severe reservations regarding the ‘hostility’ experienced when presenting their case at the ‘Solicitor’s Tribunal’. The fact that there are ‘three legal members’ representing the interests of the Solicitor and one ‘lay person’ who is not allowed to speak was described as grossly unfair. The fact that the ‘Law Society’ is also the ‘Trade Union’ and acts to protect the ‘Solicitor’ as well as so-called protection of the ‘client’ was described as ‘hypocritical and a bare-faced conflict of interest’. Examples of other professions such as the ‘medical profession in England’ were discussed. The medical profession has a ‘regulatory body called the General Medical Council’ and a separate and distinct body of representing the individual doctors, which is called the British Medical Association.

In any modern democratic country, the legal profession should also be regulated by ‘a distinctly separate regulatory council completely distinct from the Law Society’. The regulatory council should be directly accountable to the elected government in an appropriate transparent way so that each and every individual person can have the greatest confidence in the legal system.

Delegates and English Representatives outlined the serious deficits of legal knowledge that each experienced and only now after in many cases ‘decades of being bamboozled with quaint legal jargon and suffering at the hands of the legal profession’ could they be described as having ‘a reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of the legal system’, e.g. specific laws, rights, remedies, etc. One concept used was that after many years of ‘individual suffering’, individuals had become ‘experts of the legal processes by experience’. It was expressed that the lack of ‘legal knowledge’ available to the ‘general population’ needs to be addressed at the highest government level.

The lack of power by the client in all Solicitor and Barrister dealings was discussed. This was explained as ordinary people placing or giving away ‘100% belief and trust to Solicitors’ resulted in each individual being reduced to ‘being powerless and learned helplessness’ in that they believed that only the Solicitors or Barristers could help them, only to find out many years later that the Solicitors/Barristers were ‘collaborating or conspiring against their client’ and working to other ‘agendas’ and not representing their client ‘without fear or favour’. It was outlined that ‘in any dealings with a Solicitor a person should always be accompanied by a witness’ and ‘copies of all legal documents should be obtained by the client at all stages of the Solicitor and Client Contact. Clients should keep accurate and up-to-date records to ensure they have a ‘substantiated paper trail’ in all ‘legal transactions’. The VLPS must continue to do everything within our means to increase the level of legal knowledge available to individual members and encourage/increase ‘legal awareness’ and ‘legal assertiveness’ of both VLPS members and members of the general population.