Letter to Unity Lawyers 4th July 2000

Below is a letter written by me to Unity Trust’s English lawyers.

You will note (a) the involvement of Mr Peter Anderson of Simpson & Marwick; (b) the involvement of Mr Ian Smith, once a director of one of my companies London & Edinburgh (set up to buy and sell disputes) and (c) the involvement of the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

(a) to meet your request for a response by 4 o’clock on July 4th 2000 ( I was only acquainted with your request at 2 p.m. on 3rd July 2000)

(b) that you understand the background and circumstances surrounding the Warner cause to which you refer in your letter dated 23rd June.

1.There was over £20,000 of claims for expenses and outlays prior to me taking over and conducting the litigation of which half were met via payments from Fraser Brooks.

2.My own physical costs and outlays were over £4,500. The equivalent solicitor outlay would have been over £7,000. (Note Mr Franks for MacAdam Brown has recently requested a payment of over £24,000 for ‘in my opinion’ less complicated but similar work).

3.There was over £5,700 paid out to Fraser Brooks for their fees and outlays.

Return to opening page	Return to Lady Smith essay
Below is a letter written by me to Unity Trust’s English lawyers. You will note (a) the involvement of Mr Peter Anderson of Simpson & Marwick; (b) the involvement of Mr Ian Smith, once a director of one of my companies London & Edinburgh (set up to buy and sell disputes) and (c) the involvement of the Accountant in Bankruptcy. 4th July 2000. Your REF. HSR/CP/UNI. Martin Frost – In Voluntary Arrangement Dear Sirs, Upon legal advice I write you a founding letter on the following accounts: (a) to meet your request for a response by 4 o’clock on July 4th 2000 ( I was only acquainted with your request at 2 p.m. on 3rd July 2000) (b) that you understand the background and circumstances surrounding the Warner cause to which you refer in your letter dated 23rd June. (c) to assist you inadvertently becoming embroiled in an already complicated series of abuse of process claims. Mr Anderson’s affidavit of the 12th January 2000 is untrue and has been forwarded to both civil and criminal authorities where final adjudication has yet to be determined. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit Mr Anderson states that I, Martin Frost, received £17,800 by direct transfer on February 12th 1999. That is a lie. The subject of the Warner payment was reviewed by both the Scottish Law Society and the Sunday Times. I was grumpy that the January 1999 agreed payment had not been made to Fraser Books, solicitors. I threatened that in the event of payment not being received at Fraser Brooks then I would seek the bankruptcy of the solicitors concerned. Prompted by this, on Friday 12th February 1999 Mr Warner of Warner & Co, solicitors, tendered a cheque payable to Fraser Brooks for £15,000 drawn on Warner & Co’s account at the Allied Irish Bank of Charlotte Square Edinburgh. Payment of this cheque was not smooth but cleared funds enabled the Warner payment of £15,000 to be confirmed on Monday 15th February 1999. The expense element was confirmed later and agreed between Simpson & Marwich WS and Fraser Brooks. Payment made as per Fraser Brooks schedule advised to yourselves via S. Conn & Co. I did not receive any funds direct from Mr Anderson on 12th February 1999 nor have I received any funds whatsoever direct from Mr Anderson. All monies received from the Warner & Co claim were paid into Fraser Brooks account from whence Fraser Brooks kept a detailed schedule of outlays along with receipted cheques for matching outlays. In short, I did not receive any fee for my personal work but as advised I did receive some re-embursement for my outlays made during the IVA. I enclose below my explanation of the Schedule made to S. Conn & Co. The Warner action was acquired by assignment from London and Edinburgh ( a company set up by lawyers and court officials to purchase and realise legal claims) who in turn had acquired their rights by assignment from Roger Oak Ltd with the consent of the Royal Bank. Prior to Martin Frost acting there had built up a considerable outlay of legal costs as you can see from the pleadings; exhibits and productions. There were no less than four detailed Opinions from counsel. The writ along with all first witness statements were all taken and prepared by counsel. Thus on the assignment there was a continuing huge legal expense backlog. Upon the receipt of the assignment I prepared and retyped the writ, paid the court outlays and paid the Sheriff officers for special service. I then personally attended the Sheriff Court no less than eleven times and I progressed the action to the point of legal debate. Then upon the Sheriff’s recommendation I requested Mr Jones of Fraser & Brooks to conduct the litigation on my behalf. In Summary then: 1.There was over £20,000 of claims for expenses and outlays prior to me taking over and conducting the litigation of which half were met via payments from Fraser Brooks. 2.My own physical costs and outlays were over £4,500. The equivalent solicitor outlay would have been over £7,000. (Note Mr Franks for MacAdam Brown has recently requested a payment of over £24,000 for ‘in my opinion’ less complicated but similar work). 3.There was over £5,700 paid out to Fraser Brooks for their fees and outlays. I now turn directly to your letter dated 23rd June 2000 to S. Conn & Co but not received by S.Conn & Co until 30th June 2000 who forwarded same to me on 3rd July 2000. Answers to Question One. 1.1. The existence of the Warner claim was voluntarily disclosed at the Creditors meeting. It was an issue placed by Hammond Suddards before Judge Behrens in respect of correspondence (letters between Franks for Unity and Anderson for Warners) exhibited by Hammond Suddards. In relationship to not keeping my Supervisor advised I hereby copy you my fax to Mr P Bucknell of March 13th 2000. For the attention of Mr Peter Bucknell. Dear Peter, I had intended to write in more detail but Linda’s Mum died last night and matters have been hectic. The Anderson affidavit has pissed me off big time. I understand that I have written four times about same but as yet I can but find my notes of 21st September 99 and 10th June 1999 (herewith enclosed). Given that Warners cheque bounced to my lawyers and my resultant complaint to the law society either Anderson’s affidavit is a forgery or he has lost his marbles. I enclose correspondence obtained from the Sunday Times about Arakin relating to Anderson. This has been taken very seriously and action is progressing against him. The court would appreciate you forwarding me a copy of his affidavit to assist in their deliberations tomorrow. I enclose a copy of my Unity appeal print which has been remitted to the Privy Council. I have been helped by a number of authorities inter alia Professors McBryde; Fletcher and S. Lawson of IVA fame. To date the Scottish Courts have accepted their advice as persuasive as to (a) My IVA being enforceable in Scotland. (b) My assets (including Edenside) and liabilities in Scotland being encompassed by the IVA (c) my personal encapsulation to the IVA having ceased on 16th Jan. 2000 (as per the Lawson submission) (d) I retain your authority as per the 1999 amendment to represent the IVA in terms of the Court actions. On February 17th 2000 my motion to the First Division to seize Unity assets as per the Chiene & Tait figures was refused as counsel for Unity maintained that not withstanding my legal authorities you had agreed with Unity that the above would not be applicable. In terms of my IVA I subsequently undertook to obtain an appropriate letter from you. Finally I should add the court is familiar with the nuance of the Completion Certificate and wish to enquire into Unity’s fabrication conspired by Anderson. I will phone later. Martin I do believe that I advised my creditors of the Warners claim and kept not only my Supervisor advised but also my creditors with whom I have remained in regular contact. 1.2. Denied as above that Mr Anderson paid £17,800 into my bank account by direct transfer on Friday 12th February 2000. Admitted that by Monday 15th February £15,000 had been cleared into the account of Fraser Brooks, solicitors. Thereafter a further sum was remitted to Fraser Brooks as per Fraser Brooks produced schedule. The schedule is NOT produced by me, Martin Frost, but by the lawyers Fraser Brooks. I have fully accounted for these payments which were made in accordance with the obligations under the assignations to the original claim. In short, it was only the balance of monies received by Fraser Brooks that I, in terms of the IVA, could lay claim to, and from that balance collection expenses were deducted prior to my own receipt from Fraser Brooks for my expenses. All this was executed within the contractual terms of my IVA. Thus there was no free monies to refer. 1.3. All payments made out of Fraser Brooks, solicitors, schedule as produced were made on firms cheques directly payable to the recipient as designated in the schedule. A partner of Fraser Brooks is confirming same and said confirmation will be produced upon receipt. It is understood that Fraser Brooks paid cheques is sufficient verification. 1.4. (in error your repeated 1.3) Martin Frost was to receive, and thereafter Martin Frost’s IVA, the net sum obtained via the assignations and the obligations within said assignations. Martin Frost did not own or have full title to the assigned claim. These prior charges on the assigned claim required first to be paid. Mrs Lloyd on behalf of her colleagues in the assignment from London and Edinburgh was first due her funds. Further note below is made about the relationship of Mrs Lloyd; Mr C Franks and Unity Trust Bank Plc. 1.5 This is the interim fee note for the work done and instructions given by Fraser Brooks in relation to the court appearances and negotiations by that firm in reaching an out of court settlement with Warner & Co. Answer to Question two. I, Martin Frost, did not receive sums totalling £17,000 or thereabouts as delineated by Mr Anderson. I refer to my earlier explanation. Answer to Question three by Martin Frost. I, Martin Frost, am professionally advised that I have well performed the duties incumbent upon me. These duties I have exercised in spite of great mischievous and naughtiness by Unity Trust’s agent Mr Clive Franks. I have paid my voluntary contributions in full despite my depressive illness. The bulk of my time during the last three years has been spent fighting on behalf of my creditors for their legal entitlement against the Unity Trust Bank Plc.. I have out-laid over one hundred thousand pounds obtained from my creditors in defending and maintaining their assets. My creditor majority and I would oppose any attempt to seek my bankruptcy upon what my creditors and I perceive as a fabricated affidavit conspired to defraud by Mr Franks and Mr Anderson. My legal advisors relate to me that I have concluded my obligations under my IVA except for the realisation of my assets which has been delayed by the wrongful acting’s of Unity Trust’s Banks agents. It is true I have (as delineated below) obtained a new business partner via introduction by Sunday Times personal. My new business partner has facilitated my offer of £500,000 for my IVA Trust assets excluding the Unity Trust cause (this being separately pledged to my creditors). Immediate payment is available but is understood may be delayed until the conclusion of the Sumar Roll Hearing set down in the Court of Session Inner House for December 2000. You are a responsible and proper firm of solicitors. Admittedly, you have refused to obtemper Judge Behrens award of expenses to my creditors (despite reminders) but then I understand you are pressurised by an over-mighty client. This said; a principal legal advisor of mine suggests that you be advised as follows: A. Myself believe that your recent correspondence between Mr Conn is a further ruse de guerre initiated on behalf of your clients by Mr Franks for whom I have become a fixation. I believe your client does not have legitimate concerns. I believe your client encourages his agents to provoke dissension and spread a tissue of lies and half-truths. I believe you play off the English legal system to the Scottish. I believe that if you persist in your current tactics you are guilty along with Franks of possible fraud and/ or abuse of process. I believe that Unity mistakenly believes that: (I) I do not have the resources to pay an award of expenses in Frost v Unity and that (II) if I fail to pay then I would be legally barred from pursuing Unity on behalf of my creditors with the Counterclaim in Unity v Frost. Unity has been mistakenly advised on both fronts. I believe your current platitudes of concern are a sham; an ill-disguised cost and time wasting plot to attempt to defeat the legitimate claims of my creditors against the Unity Trust Bank Plc.. My reasons for these conclusions are:- (1) your past record coupled with that of Franks and counsel Nicoll (a) that on February 21st 1997 you and Franks deceived the Lord President of the Inner House by misleading Mr Nicol (counsel for Unity) to lie. Said lie being later admitted by Mr Nicol in open court to Lord Bonomy on which occasion Mr Nicol firmly explained that you and Mr Franks had mislead him. (b) that in making his apologies to Lord Bonomy Mr Nicol again lied when he stated that his lie was due to a recent Bank policy change from Wednesday 19th February when you and Franks last advised him that no challenge by Unity was planned on the IVA. (Mr Franks own affidavit exhibits sworn on 13th February 1997 proves Nicoll’s statement to be a further lie). (c) that in an effort to secure an award of expenses on the 24th May 2000 Mr Nicoll did repeatedly lie concerning his state of knowledge on the 28th February 1997 and furthermore lied upon solicitors advice as to the planned duration of the October 1996 Sumar Roll. Nicoll advised three days when in fact (as confirmed by the Court’s Keeper’s office) the time set down had been but one day. These facts are found in the Scottish Court process… Mr Nicoll’s most recent lie being plainly available for all to see as it has been published by the Scottish Courts Administration on the internet. I believe that the Lord President in knowledge of the above instructed Lady Paton on Friday 30th June 2000 to refer my leave to appeal Lord Bonomy’s recent decision back to Lord Bonomy as the Lord President requires Lord Bonomy to deal appropriately with Unity’s repeated lies. (2) The timing of your correspondence appears to be prompted by a Scottish Court happening. A strategist could suggest that as soon as Unity runs into trouble in Scotland your assistance is sought to create a diversion to relieve pressure on Mr Franks. Co-incidence is an improbable justification for five such instances particularly as the so-called Anderson information was with Franks well prior to January 2000. (3) Informed judicial and counsel gossip passed to the Sunday Times states that the Franks crusade against me has driven him to commit probable acts of dishonesty (as narrated herein) in respect of the fabrication of evidence; the fabrication of expenses and the destruction of court papers and evidence. (4) A creditor’s Scottish law agents have reported back to my creditor that they are unhappy with the tactics employed by Franks regarding my IVA and Unity legal action. So much so that Carnaby switched its support from Unity to myself in last May’s creditor vote. In similar vein Revenue solicitors have expressed a distaste for Franks actions which resulted in a decision by the Revenue to abstain in the May vote. (5) A Scottish judge, Mr Drummond Q.C., has openly gone on public record that due to his past possible erroneous ruling contrary to Frost on a Frost/Franks/Unity related matter he is unable in future to hear any cause or case involving Martin Frost. B.My personal dispute with Mr Anderson of Simpson & Marwick. (Not to be confused with his associate Mr Anderson of the Revenue whom Revenue lawyers withdrew support from in the 1997/98 262 Application) Anderson’s affidavit smacks of sour grapes. There is personal animosity not least due to my association with Mr Andrew McNamara, a multi-millionaire Glasgow based businessman. McNamara is in dispute with Anderson and a number of prominent members of the Scottish legal establishment. Anderson has lost considerable prestige on account of McNamara’s claims of dishonesty by Anderson. Said claims are current and are subject to Crown Office; Police and Customs & Excise involvement. I, Martin Frost, by assignment acquired part of the rights of redress against Anderson and his colleagues. There is a reported case on the internet for May in Tods Murray v Arakin. Today there are no less than 11 causes or cases current or planned in which I am in litigation directly or indirectly with Anderson. C. Franks personal dispute with Mrs Lloyd. Another case of soar grapes. This commenced in 1994. It is a bizarre tale. Currently Franks is in dispute with Lloyd concerning an award of expenses. Franks billed her approximately £24,000 for his expenses relating to his role in a case Lloyd v Minto in which Franks represented the defender Minto. Evidence presented to the Auditor clearly demonstrates that Franks knowingly lied in his defences of Minto. On taxation the Auditor reduced Franks costs by approximately 50%…. The matter has now gone to Appeal and the Scottish ombudsman has re-entered the scene. However it is the fall out from this case, which is amazing. Franks admitted to the auditor that he had rendered a zero fee note to his client Minto and that he had a hidden agenda in representing Minto. Furthermore Franks complained to Lloyd that he had been unable to secure payment of his fees from the Faculty of Advocates but had secured payment from the Unity Trust Bank Plc. Minto was the prior wife of James Thomson from whose sequestrated estate my IVA Trust Fund is awaiting funds. Both Minto and Thomson hold assets pledged by me to my IVA Trust fund. Unity has thus directly funded the delayed realisation of these assets. Unity’s intervention being confirmed not only by Franks but by officials from the Accountant in Bankruptcy who have delayed remission to Mr Conn of Thomson realisations. D. London and Edinburgh was the vehicle through which I, Martin Frost, gained my rights under the Warner assignment. Lawyers and court officials had set it up to purchase good legal cases. Mrs Lloyd’s husband (Mr Ian Smith) was Clerk to Lord Ross; then Scotland’s second judge. Smith was a director of London & Edinburgh. The machinations between Smith; Lloyd; Ross and Franks are mind boggling. These culminated in Smith and Lloyd being suspended and Lord Ross taking early retirement. Smith was banned from holding office in London and Edinburgh and in similar manner the other connected parties likewise. Mrs Lloyd’s payment as per the schedule was in relation to her and her colleagues’ rights in terms of the London and Edinburgh agreement. It is understood that Mrs Lloyd’s payment prompted a bickering between the parties. Mr Smith admitted in writing a connection with Mr Franks and that Smith passed information and assisted Franks with Unity. Statements from the Smith household and others were then taken in December 1999 in which Ian Smith is stated to having admitted to the removal and destruction of Frost Unity evidence. Said statements are now with the Scottish Courts Administration. E.Scottish Borders Council is the local authority in which Edenside is located. This property is the raison d’être to much of the English and Scottish Court actions. Martin Frost in December 1999 was obliged to obtain an interdict (injunction) against this council to prevent the continuation of an intrusion by the Council on behalf of Unity. Franks for Unity had paid surveyors to masquerade as council employees and so gain entry to Edenside. This has been an expensive and complicated cause. Why does Unity implement such bully-boy tactics to the detriment of the IVA creditors? The Unity payment of monies to third parties has prompted the question why? The concern is not with my conduct but that of Unity Trust Bank and its agents. It is Unity’s conduct, which is the real issue. I thus on behalf of my consenting creditors and myself formally put you on notice that we will hold you personally responsible should you choose to proceed further with this bogus and ill thought out fabrication of Andersons. Yours faithfully Martin Frost
Return to Lady Smith Essay	Return to opening page