F.A.O. ‘CHUCKLECHOPS’ FEENEY.

‘WE HAVE HAD LEGAL ADVICE THAT SUCH A MEETING WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AS WE WOULD BE DISCUSSING MATTERS RELATING TO THE CASE WHICH ARE NOT REALLY FOR THE SEMI-PUBLIC FORUM THAT A GENERAL MEETING INEVITABLY IS‘.

Good morning to you Allan young man, and Mortonjag challenges you to publish to the membership the legal advice you claim to have had advising you TO BREAK THE LAW!

You won’t because you CANNOT! Please, therefore, convene forthwith the now obligatory S.G.M. There’s a good lad!

Meanwhile young fella, here’s more unedited and completely unsolicited propaganda which was sent to a non- Trust member by your predecessor and master, Herr Fuhrer Robinson, but firstly Mortonjag would like to correct one point in the boss’s lengthy blusterfest.

The previous complaint to I.C.A.S. now forms part of an updated complaint which focuses on your Master’s Trust Deed scam, and is being submitted after advice from the Accountant in Bankruptcy. The claim that ‘allegations were dismissed out of hand’ is a blatant lie. If in doubt contact Mr. Mudge at I.C.A.S., with whom Mortonjag had lengthy discussion.

Here’s the lawyer liar:

PM THREAD ON GMST FORUM FROM NICK ROBINSON TO DAVID EDWARDS -A NON- TRUST MEMBER

Hi there!

I have returned from the USA with my eyes pinned open for now. I think the points you’re driving at are very legitimate concerns. I undertook a full forensic accounting review of the Stars night and my accounts prompted Mr Gallacher’s side to produce their own accounts – in fact several different sets! I have analysed the differences between our own accounts and Gallagher’s latest set for the court setting out why I consider we are right and he is wrong. The plan from their side seems to be

 

  1. a)They do not want the evidence heard
  2. b)They do not want me conducting the case for the Trust
  3. c)They want to up the ante to a higher court so that essentially the Trust has to put thousands of pounds at risk to get our case heard

 We intend to argue that moving to a higher court is wrong and that not allowing me to speak for the Trust is a breach of European Human Rights legislation. Unfortunately the Sheriff’s eyes are likely to glaze over at that point but we think she will allow the case to be heard in the lower court. If that is the case, the maximum costs that could be awarded against us = £500 and we see that as worth it for the chance to actually have the evidence heard in court. It is also the case that the Sheriff wanted to know where the defences were at the hearing. Gallacher’s solicitor was not ready for this as, they had nothing prepared and he was relying solely on the Sheriff at the very least deferring the case. She did however, order that defences be lodged within two weeks and so I will get a chance to see what these are.I personally had nothing to do with the Stars Night save trying to reconstruct the accounts after the event but because I have done so, I have been ridiculed by Dr Newall, including allegations that:I am a Nazi I tell lies I have made up figures to suit the occasion

In addition he has attempted to report me to the Institute of Chartered Accountants (who dismissed the allegations out of hand). I have too much to lose to tell lies in a situation like this but I have formed the view that some people on the other side of this matter will do just about anything to “win” the case. That has included one board member being sent a picture of his young daughter with the legend “watching you”.

 If the ruling is that we do have to go to the higher court, my leaning is to abandon pursuing Gallacher. It is just stupid to risk five figure legal costs to recover a couple of thousand pounds. That leaves us with trying to rescue the reputation of the Trust and I would propose to publish the evidence dossier and let them form their own views. Obviously, I cannot do that whilst the court case is still current.

 I don’t want to risk excessive costs but I do want the truth to be out there.

 Nick Robinson

Nick,

Thanks for your recent PM on the GMST Forum. I’ve tried replying  several times but each time the message won’t leave/ get’s stuck  in / is prevented from leaving the outbox. My question is this:-

In your PM to me last November on greenockmorton.org you stated that  you intended to recover monies owed from ‘more than one source’. Have you had any success / made any progress with source(s) other  than Mr Gallacher?

 Dave,

I have been telling you a lot of this stuff because as a long standing poster I have regarded you as one of the good guys with a  lot more common sense than many and because I would prefer you were in possession of facts rather than the poisonous drivel spouted by Dr Newall. Obviously I would prefer if disclosures made to you are kept between us at the moment. I would not like Dr Newall, for example to know my thoughts on how the court case should proceed although other stuff I am happy to share with whoever wants to know.  I would just ask that you are circumspect with anything I tell you.  In answer to your question above, my figures suggest that the co-organiser of the night owes at least £535. This arises mostly  from ticket sales and those are the hardest for me to pin down as I have no contact details for the majority of attendees at the event and have been unable to contact them. My assertions are based rather on what each individual said he sold (as evidenced by spreadsheets  produced by both of them at the time) plus where there was doubt, I have contacted as many people as I could as to how they paid and to  whom.

 I say he owes £535 at least. This is because there are £300 of seats (i.e. 12 seats) where I have just no idea who got the money or even the names of the occupants. Those seats could be ascribed to either of the organisers but I have no evidence either way. In addition, T-Shirts were purchased for the bar staff and both claim they paid for them at a cost of £140. I can’t prove it one way or another and both have had an allowance for them. Clearly someone is lying but I don’t know who!

The question of pursuing the other organiser remains open. The evidence against him is less strong and the amount involved smaller.  We are not for writing it off and have asked him for it but he  flatly denies owing anything and so if we are to proceed, it will be  another court case and, to be honest, there’s a question of whether  it is economically viable and I for one, do not want two cases  running at once. The current case is a nightmare on its own! It’s a  work in progress!