The Melbourne Law Firm Russell Kennedy are hiding my mothers true wishes

    The Melbourne Law Firm, Russell Kennedy are hiding my mothers true wishes!

Contact Diarmuid Tel 0401416305                                                         email charada@mira.net

The Melbourne Law Firm Russell Kennedy are hiding my mothers true wishes because they know that Ian Bult, one of their partners lied to my mother`s children about her final wishes. Arthur Bolkas, Russell Kennedy`s wills expert sat in the same room when Ian Bult lied and did absolutely nothing. Even when the evidence was produced to prove that Ian Bult of Russell Kennedy lied the firm has refused to acknowledge the abuse. Below is an expose of how this law firm try`s to defend itself and will not even allow my mother`s family access to the deceased estate file that has cost her family $80,000 in extorted legal fees by the law firm Russell Kennedy in an uncontested estate.

The current law reform process that has investigated reform within our succession laws has recommended that there should be a statutory requirement for law firms to give beneficiaries of a deceased estate access to these files but due to the corruption within our legal regulatory system these recommendations have not been placed into law.

The Film the Castle has become a cultural icon within the Australian Social ethos that is currently being eroded by the hubris of lawyers like Ian Bult, Paul Gleeson, Micheal Main and Arthur Bolkas. While the lawyers responsible for regulating these abusers of our families such as Michael McGarvie and Clare Noone sit back and twiddle their thumbs as they watch this Gorey spectacle and reach for another glass of Chardonnay and play hand ball with our lives.

        To help support this site please link to purchase the book:                 Lawyers or Grave Robbers?               

This is a true story of how a Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy behaves when they are confronted about their abuse of a family by lying to them about their mothers final wishes.

This is a story that places a new dimension upon Hubris and places it into the realm of Wanton Arrogance Leading to a Nemesis.

This is a story of how absolute evil and unfettered power behaves when the regulators and law makes have become so corrupt that even common decency is discarded so as to protect a public perception that our legal system can be trusted instead of doing a job and fixing a problem.

In my families case it has been proved that Ian Bult of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy lied to my mother`s children about her final wishes. This allowed Ian Bult and Russell Kennedy to create a legal mess and charge my mother`s estate $80,000 in unnecessary legal fees. The actions of the lawyer Ian Bult and his assistant Arthur Bolkas and the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy destroyed a family and caused two nervous breakdowns.

After eleven years I was given the authority by my sister the only named executor on my mother`s will to obtain access to my late mother`s legal file held by the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy.

This is a blow by blow description of how the law firm behaved. It exposes how evil and arrogant our legal profession has become due to the failure by our public funded regulators The Victorian Legal Services Commissioner, the Department of Consumer affairs, The Attorney Generals both state and federal and the state Ombudsman to do the job that cost the tax payer millions of dollars per year.

Wanton Arrogance Leading to a Nemesis

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

04 03 2016

Dear Mr Main

I am surprised that you have not as yet informed me the person authorised by my sister the only named person in my mother’s will to go and view the estate file that your firm currently holds. I am patiently awaiting a date and a time so please can you arrange one.

Please do not continue to feed me more of your legal rhetoric and just get down to some productive work old man and arrange the time and place.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan.

CC Paul Gleeson

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Saturday,February 27, 2016 11:13 PM

Dear Mr Main

It is painfully obvious that your firm will not acknowledge the terrible hurt you have caused my mother`s family by the lies that were told about her wishes while one of your employees Arthur Bolkas did not do his job and while the rest of the members of your firm named in the probate documents sat back and did not lift a finger. This inaction and your failure to recognise the abuse that was committed to my mother`s family is indicative of a law firm that does not respect the importance of the family unit in our society. It is unbelievable that you are permitted to practice in law.

Never the less you speak of authority as if you have some. Any authority your firm had in this matter flew out the window when Ian Bult lied to my sister and Arthur Bolkas did not intervene to correct the situation. You have an obligation under Australian Consumer law to allow me and my brother to see the file and to provide the answers to the questions I have put to you. We are not some lump of meat or a good that can be bought or sold we are not chattels we are human beings who have experienced a terrible abuse from your firm which you need to resolve through a transparent process which will initially arranging inspection of my deceased mothers file which is owned by the estate and since I have been asked by my sister, my mother`s personal representative to gain access to the file and I step in my mother`s shoes, Your client you will eventually grant my request so instead of continuing to waste my time and continue disrespecting my mother’s wishes and her family please arrange a time and a place for inspection of the file and answer the questions that have been put to you. During the past two years your firm has continually been asked to supply information and answer some questions about why Ian Bult lied and during that time you have not been able to explain or provide one single scrap of evidence to refute the fact that he did lie, which means your firm broke the trust given to you by my mother and you have absolutely no authority whatsoever to deny Me and my brother access to the file that you are purposely hiding because you know it will reveal the terrible sins your firm has committed against my mother’s family and it will show your firms complete and utter disrespect for the most important component of Australian Society and that is the respect for the mother and the family.

Looking forward to the time and the place to see the file, I will be away from Tuesday to Thursday of this week. Friday or this Monday will be suitable for me.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Saturday, February 27, 2016 5:33 PM                                                     Re: Who is the executor who is the client. Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan.

 Dear Mr Hannigan

Repeating the same demands does not make them any more intelligible. You do not have any authority, as we previously explained, and we have no professional obligation to you. Accordingly, you will not have access to someone else’s file, nor answers to questions put on false premises, and full of gratuitous abuse.

If you continue to send your nonsensical emails we will not waste any further time replying. Our professional obligation of courtesy has been fully discharged in the face of your speculation about legal issues you do not understand, coupled with ugly threats and abuse.

Enough is enough.

Michael Main

Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 27 Feb 2016, at 3:03 pm

Dear Mr Main

As I have been given the authority by the only named executor of my mother’s will and I am my mother`s eldest son your firm has a professional obligation to answer my questions and provide me with access to my mother`s file which is owned by her estate. So please can you fulfill your professional obligations and provide the answers to my questions. Questions that I am sure should be easy to answer particularly from a Law Firm that does quality work.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

February 27, 2016 2:22 PM

Since you premise your questions with false allegations, you are not a client, and have no standing to demand answers, you will get none.
Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 27 Feb 2016, at 10:47 am,

Dear Mr Main

I am still patiently waiting for answers to my questions.

1 Please could you provide details of how Mr Ian Bult was chosen to deal with my mother’s estate.

Please could you supply Russell Kennedy`s quality control procedures for lawyers in your firm (As Ian Bult was when he lied to my sister) on how to treat a situation were 100% of the beneficiaries of a deceased estate disagree with the lawyer in your firm who is working on the estate.

  1. Please could you supply your procedures in regards to sharing information with the family of the deceased about the deceased persons wishes.
  2. Please could you inform me of what your firms internal policy is when you have a partner representing a deceased person who lies to the deceased persons nominated representative and you have a paid employee in the same room who is aware of the lie, do you have written procedures so as the paid employee lawyer knows what to do in regards to informing the nominated person of the deceased that they have been lied to by one of the partners.
  3. Please could you tell me what time and what date my mother`s deceased estate file which is owned by her estate will be made available for inspection by myself and my brother.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

February 25, 2016 2:03 PM

Dear Mr Hannigan,

 The obvious threat in your second last paragraph below will not help you, as your claims of authority are specious and your demands are groundless. We refuse to be bullied by you.

Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 25 February 2016 1:54 PM
Who is the executor who is the client. Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan.

Dear Mr Main.

Your firm was entrusted by my mother to work in conjunction with my sister to help her and her two brothers and sister in sorting out my mother’s affairs after she died. Your firm broke that trust by lying to my sister about my mother`s wishes. Your firm refused to release a letter for seven years which subsequently showed your firm lied to a mother`s children about her final wishes. Your firm spent about $970 on an opinion from Special Counsel which you promised to provide to my sister. Your firm after lying to my sister and hiding the evidence then bullied her from her responsibilities as executor of our mother`s estate. In so doing your firm destroyed a well-adjusted family and caused two nervous breakdowns. Your firm also created an immense amount of damage to myself in your lies as I did not know about the lie for seven years and wondered about my mother`s deception. To have created that barrier of mistrust between a dead mother and her son is a cruel and evil sin. A sin that not even the devil itself could think up let alone for the few pennies your firm gained from its deception.

I fully realise that there is a part of Australia that from the time of Captain Cook has always been infected by hubris and it is that arrogance that allows your firm to commit evil acts upon the families who you have been entrusted to care for as you do not see other people as human beings but as items from which to extract a dollar. When that arrogance is confronted as I and my brother are doing to your firm because of what you have done you make threats you call people names you refer to them as criminals and insane, any words that allow you not to admit that you have been involved in something that is really really bad.

Mr Main I suggest you get to know me a bit better than you currently do and understand the meaning of persistence and realise you are dealing with a person who does get things to happen no matter what the challenge is and when you disrespect the mother in her final wishes you have well and truly crossed the line.

It is no wonder that your firm continues to want to hide the file you currently hold from myself who has been given the authority to view the file by my sister the only named executor in the will. I really do suggest that you arrange a suitable time for inspection and copying of the file so as my mother’s family can stop wasting their time with Russell Kennedy and lay our mother`s soul to rest.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan.

 

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, February 25, 2016 11:44 AM

Who is the executor who is the client. Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Hannigan,

You equate an explanation you don’t like with no explanation at all. Unfortunately you are as wrong about that as you are about your ridiculous allegations concerning this firm. Endless repetition of the same question will not result in a different answer –

“The definition of insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.

It is you who should stop misbehaving and wasting our time and your own.

Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 25 February 2016 11:27 AM
Re: Who is the executor who is the client. Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan.

Dear Michael

I have been given the authority to obtain the file from the executor as named in the will so do the right thing and arrange a time for us to inspect the file, a file that your firm has been paid $80,000 for. You as yet have not given any explanation at all. I can only presume that the reason you will not allow inspection of the file by my mother’s family is because it will prove that your firm has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. So instead of misbehaving and wasting my time get on with the inevitable and do the right thing and arrange a time and place to inspect and copy the file.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:23 AM

Who is the executor who is the client. Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan.

Dear Mr Hannigan,

You are waiting for something that is not going to happen. You have been advised repeatedly that nothing will be produced for you to inspect and copy, and we have explained why that is the case. Your apparent unwillingness to accept that explanation is a matter over which we have no control.

Michael Main

 

 Michael Main
Principal

 D +61 3 9609 1512  >  F  +61 3 9609 6712  >  M  0418 387 069  >  mmain@rk.com.au

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

This email and any attachments are confidential.  Only intended recipients may use this email.  You must not disclose, copy or otherwise use this email if you receive it in error.  Instead, please contact us (eg by return email), then delete all copies of this email.  Any privilege is not waived.  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 25 February 2016 8:46 AM
Who is the executor who is the client. Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan.

Dear Michael

I am still waiting for a time and place so as I can inspect and copy the files you hold of my deceased mother`s estate and a response to this email. Perhaps I will have to phone you to make sure you have received it.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

               To Michael Main of                   the Melbourne law firm                       Russell Kennedy                                 

Date 11 02 2016

Dear Michael                                                                                                       In response to the condescending and patronising letter I received 09 02 2015 from Mr Michael Main. (copy enclosed).                                       It is unfortunate that your firm has not been able to develop any sense of conscience during the past eleven years and remains in the turgid swamp of denial that you perpetuate with your mistruths and lies.

Let us work through this letter word by word sentence by sentence and let us hope that if there is a god in heaven and a devil in hell, that after reading it, you may eventually be able to decipher the difference between right and wrong, between abuse and caring, between the blatant brutalisation of a family by a barbaric power crazed lawyer and the nurturing and care a natural mother has for her children. Once you can acknowledge that difference, you will realise that the abhorrent behaviour generated by Ian Bult and the failure by all of you to intervene, is another form of unfettered abuse carried out against innocent and powerless people, by those that have been placed in a position of ultimate trust and that it is no different to the behaviour exhibited by the institutions who failed to prevent the sexual abuse of children by people who were entrusted to care for them or by the Nazi government of Germany that allowed its laws to be reinterpreted, which led to the holocaust. It is called the abuse of power by those in whom we give our trust.

My mother gave her trust to your law firm, to work in conjunction with my sister, to assist in managing her affairs after her death. She did not give your firm the unfettered right, to hide, deceive and exploit her children, which is what your firm has done.

Your patronising suggestion that we should move on is an indictment upon your own firm as it does not recognise the serious impact your firm`s abuse has and will have upon the development of my mother`s family for generations to come. By making this statement you infer it is just another case, just another group of people we have processed, just another tens of thousands of $$$`s added to our firm`s coffers and who gives a toss about our victims. What a heartless and cruel entity you have become.                                            Let us address each point in your letter.

  1. This firm is not making the decisions. The decisions are made by our client, the personal representative of your late mother`s estate.                                                                                                                   My mother named her daughter and the members of Russell Kennedy as executors in her will (copy Enclosed).                                                                                                                                                                    The reason she named the members of Russell Kennedy to work in conjunction with her daughter was because, as she stated, none of her children had expertise in taxation law or wills law which she knew could become a nightmare and had the forethought to create a resource that would assist her family during this trying time in their lives. It was not to have them terrorised by a brutal lawyer who has hidden and lied about her final wishes.                                                         As she nominated the members of your law firm and not an individual person, it places the responsibility of the decision making process into the hands of the members of the law firm.                           The first question that I ask is how did the members of the law firm decide to allow Ian Bult to become the executor, when they knew that there was a disagreement between Ian Bult and my sister and all of my mother`s children, as to how the estate should be managed?                                                                                                                                 I have also asked for a copy of your procedures, when such a problem arises, prior to your firm choosing the executor?                       Answers to both of these questions have not been forthcoming.             Since the problems occurred prior to the granting of probate and prior to Ian Bult becoming a named executor, the issue of decision making, dates to a time where all of the members of Russell Kennedy were responsible, When Ian Bult lied in the presence of Arthur Bolkas, your wills expert at the time when he did not inform his other client ******* of Ian Bult`s lie and who was the only executor in person at the time.                                                               Your firm is responsible and needs to make the decision to be open and transparent and allow my mother`s family access to her files.
  2. You have no authority to make your demands since your sister, ******, did not become an executor of your late mother`s estate. Any authority from her to you is ineffective. This is a false statement and just another lie; it is another form of abuse by your firm.                                                                                                                       From your first bill (copy enclosed) which as yet I have not received an itemised account, I am aware that my sister as the executor made contact with Ian Bult on 20 07 2004, about three weeks after my mother had died and about two weeks after her funeral.                                                                                                              One of the duties of an executor is to arrange the funeral. My sister and my mother`s family worked together with these arrangements and your firm played no part in this. Hence she acted as the executor. She acted as the executor during the initial discussions with Ian Bult and only relinquished her role as executor after Ian Bult recommended she do so and after Ian Bult lied to her and refused to show her a letter that he stated supported his view of my mother`s wishes. At that time he also bullied and threatened her with exorbitant legal costs to the estate if she continued to disagree with his opinion of her mother`s wishes and your firm advised her not to participate in probate.(copy of letter dated 31 08 2004).                         Ian Bult and Russell Kennedy lost any authority they had due to their breach of their fiduciary duties mainly trust at this point in time.         I do have the authority from my sister the only named executor in my mother`s will to obtain the files that your firm holds in relation to my mother’s final wishes. In particular the part of the file preceding the grant of probate and the notes to the construction of the will. There is also a report from Special Counsel that was paid for by the estate and was promised to my sister that I also require.
  3. Your allegations concerning Mr Bult are rejected. Mr Bult has a well-deserved reputation as an honest and decent lawyer. Unfortunately for Ian Bult the facts show that he lied.                               My mother remembered Adolph Hitler coming and saying good night to the children as her family would attend his residence prior to World War Two as members of the British High command. At the time he behaved as a good man.
  4. As you are making allegations directly against this firm, and we are entitled to defend ourselves, there is no conflict of interest. On the one hand you state your hands are tied and you act for the client, a client who has a questionable position and who was not the executor of my mother’s will but just a member of your firm at the time, who happened to lie in front of one of your employees Arthur Bolkas, who should have been protecting the interests of my sister ******* and my mother`s estate.                                                                      Another member of your firm Paul Gleeson was able to release a copy of the letter dated 10 10 1998, (copy enclosed) but cannot allow access to the file. It is obvious that your firm has a conflict of interest by refusing to allow us access to the file and by refusing to acknowledge the authority given to me by my sister ******** to inspect the file.                                                                                                     As far as your inference that I am speculating and that my “conspiracy theories”, are incorrect. This statement is just another form of belittlement and abuse by a law firm that has unfettered power. The facts are plain as day. The contents of the letter prove Ian Bult lied and your continued resistance over eleven years prove you have done the wrong thing and have a lot to hide.                               You may wonder why I bother to continue dealing with the mess you have created. Your power emanates from a culture of abuse that began over two hundred years ago when Australia was settled as a prison. Unfortunately law firms such as yours and lawyers like Ian Bult have not as yet learned that we no longer live in a prison where abuse by those in power was never disciplined.                                         My mother’s family immigrated to Australia as free citizens and have decided to remain in this nation with our children and make it our home. It is unfortunate that some of that brutality of our nations origins has still been allowed to remain and is clearly shown in the way your law firm and Ian Bult has treated my mother`s final wishes. It is not an abuse that one would experience as a child being abused by a pedophile priest, it is not an abuse a person would have experienced within the holocaust, but it is the type of abuse experienced in a jail by a convict without any rights, when confronted with a system that does not value the welfare of family cohesion and I for one will not allow this revulsion to continue in a country where my children and their children are to live their lives.   Can you arrange for a suitable time for inspection of my mother’s files and recognise the authority that has been given to me by my sister and the rest of her family so as we can have a real interpretation of our mother`s wishes instead of the interpretation of her wishes by a group of lawyers who are protecting their own interests from the abuse they have inflicted upon my mother`s family.                                                                               I await a time and place that is convenient from you so as we can come and inspect the files and so as I no longer have to waste my time communicating with a law firm. Eleven year is far too long to wait to find out what are my mother`s wishes and to endure the cruelty that you law firm has perpetuated upon my mother`s family. If you have not understood this letter go back to the beginning and read it again and again until you work out that the wrong thing has occurred and realise that the only way this matter is going to be resolved is by your firm behaving in a transparent and truthful manner by providing access to the files that I have the authority to see.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

To The members of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Date 12 02 2016

To The members of Russell Kennedy in response to a letter sent 11 02 2016 from Michael Main (enclosed) in response to a letter sent to Arthur Bolkas 11 11 2015 (enclosed)

Dear

  1. Thank you for confirming that Arthur Bolkas was an employee during the period 01 07 2004 until 01 07 2005.
  2. You state that Russell Kennedy did not act for your sister ******* and advised her to seek her own advice. She said her brother in law was a partner in a law firm and that she would consult him. It follows that Mr Bolkas did not act for your sister either. The premise for your questions of Arthur Bolkas is an idiosyncratic interpretation of legal issues, events and relationships, and regrettably, entirely incorrect.

My sister and other members of my mother`s family attended the offices of Russell Kennedy on 18 08 2004 to discuss my mother’s will with one of the members of Russell Kennedy a man named Ian Bult who happened to have been my late mother`s lawyer. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss my mother`s will. My mother had named the law firm Russell Kennedy as executors in her will so as to work in conjunction with her daughter to finalise her affairs after her death, this means that she wished her family and the law firm Russell Kennedy to work together to the best advantage of her family.

My sister **** as the only named executor in her mother`s will and the members of my mother`s family attended that meeting with Russell Kennedy believing that they were there to help and advise the family in relation to my late mothers will. She had no idea that she would require legal representation at that meeting and I know my mother or any other Australian would not think she would need to bring a lawyer to a meeting at a law firm who had also been named as executors and had been instructed to work in conjunction with her daughter.

At that meeting the wills expert from Russell Kennedy attended as did my late mother`s lawyer Ian Bult, they both charged the estate for their time. My sister was lied to at that meeting by Ian Bult and the lawyer Arthur Bolkas who was being paid for from the estate so as to assist my sister in her work as executor sat back and let Ian Bult lie to her without informing her of the lie. My sister was a client of your firm at that time as she walked in the shoes of her late mother as the only named executor in my mother’s will and for you to declare that she was not you client at that time is sheer madness. Why would my mother nominate a law firm to be an executor of her estate that required her daughter to pay for another lawyer for representation?

Your statement is idiotic.

Why do you not go to the Ethics Committee at your own expense and asked them to determine whether or not you had a conflict of interest at the time one of your members lied to the my mother`s daughter who was the only named executor in the estate whilst your wills expert sat back and did nothing?

You could ask them and ask them who was representing who and how ethical was the behaviour of Ian Bult and Arthur Bolkas and who was whose client? Ian Bult was quite happy to waste the funds of the estate climbing up that tree so why do you not go ahead now. You can also ask them if its ethical to withhold the estate file after the “nominated” member of a law firm has lied to the children of their dead mother about her final wishes. You may be surprised as to their view and you may discover your own idiosyncrasy.

So as to obtain clarity of this issue and transparency can you arrange a time so that my brother and I can come and inspect the file as requested by my sister who was named as executor of my mother`s estate and is the only true personal representative of my late mother who has a genuine interest in seeing the true wishers of her mother be enacted instead of the interests of a greedy lawyer who was only after a quick dollar at the expense and well-being of her estate.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan.

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

This is the email sent 05 02 2016 at 8.55 AM to Michael Main

Dear Mr Main

Please explain why it is that a law firm has the right to make all of these decisions. You have made a decision that I have no authority. Please could you tell me how you have come to that conclusion? You have a signed letter from my sister the only named executor in my mother’s will that gives me the authority to view the file that your firm holds. How then do you come to the conclusion that I have no authority? The authority has been given from my mother to my sister to me. Tell me who authorises you to deny me that authority or is it a captains call from your space ship.                                                     Please can you inform me why you do not have a conflict of interest in dealing with this matter and why you have not approached the Ethics Committee for a decision? Also can you please explain to me why Mr Bult refused to hand over the said letter to my sister when she asked for it and why he lied about its contents?

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, February 12, 2016 3:10 PM

Who is the executor who is the client. Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Michael

When your Law Firm is named in conjunction with another person as executor, is that named person a client of your firm, or do they have to pay another lawyer to represent themselves and the family of the deceased against the dishonesty of your firm? According to the correspondence I am having with Michael Main and Arthur Bolkas it seems as if this is the case and I think you need to warn any of your clients who are alive and have nominated members of your law firm as executors along with a family member of your firm`s idiosyncrasy, because 99.99999% of people think that if a law firm and another person are the named executors, the law firm is working for the other named executor, who is their client. If this is not the case and you are writing wills such as the one my mother had written for her by Ian Bult, are you not engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct? I have attached my reply to Michael Main regarding the role Arthur Bolkas played in the deception of my sister and the failure to grant my mother her final wishes.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

11 02 2016

Dear Mr Hannigan,
Please see the attached letter.
Regards,
Michael Main

Michael Main
Principal
D +61 3 9609 1512 > F +61 3 9609 6712 > M 0418 387 069 > mmain@rk.com.au
RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

 

rk letter1

 

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Main
I do represent the authority of my sister the only named executor in my mother`s will. With that authority I represent the interests of my mother`s family. I suggest you delve into history Mr Main and discover the true source of the law which lies in family.
As far as you saying you are doing what you do. Again I ask you, Don`t you have a conflict interest Mr Main?
Please can you arrange for a copy of the report made by special counsel and Mr Bult`s brief to special counsel available for inspection along with the deceased estate file of my late mother that your firm currently has in its possession. I am available any time next week at your convenience to come and inspect it.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

4 Feb 2016, at 6:21 pm,

Dear Mr Main

You are delusional. You have a signed letter from my sister in your possession. See the copy below.

So when are you going to arrange for inspection of the file because I do have the authority and I am not inventing anything.

Unfortunately it is yourself that thinks you can deny gravity Look what happened to Daedalus and Icarus after the wax melted.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, February 04, 2016 12:28 PM

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan made a mistake it was $260,000 not $2,600

Dear Mr Hannigan,

This not going to happen. We will not be producing anything for your inspection on the premise of lies about alleged authority for the estate, your family or anything else you may invent. You should stop wasting your time in endlessly asking the same questions, the answers are not going to change.

Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 4 February 2016 12:00 PM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan made a mistake it was $260,000 not $2,600

Dear Mr Main

This is not an explanation and as yet you have not provided a date and a time for inspection of the deceased estate file that my sister has given me authority as the only named executor of my mother`s will to inspect. As I mentioned to you previously, you seem to have lost respect for the most important component of our civilisation, which is respect of the mother and her family. Hopefully I will be able to teach you a small piece of wisdom and you will be grateful for it. Always have respect for the mother, particularly her wishes after death and always have respect for her family particularly when you entrusted with their future well-being by the mother after death. You will find this information within the Ten Commandments which I understand are the foundation base for our laws. Commandments, Five, Eight, Nine and Ten are relevant to the actions of your firm.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:07 AM

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan made a mistake it was $260,000 not $2,600

Dear Mr Hannigan,

You could conduct a masterclass in handing out gratuitous insults, and all of your irrational claims are undermined by your own lies. Nothing will be produced for your inspection, as you know, with full reasons having been provided to you repeatedly.

Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 4 February 2016 11:00 AM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan made a mistake it was $260,000 not $2,600

Dear Mr Main

Why will you not provide us access to the file? Please stop throwing insults around. This is not a playground for spoilt little brats, this is about the long term well-being of my mother`s family which your law firm has damaged through its lies and the mismanagement of her estate. Your trickery and deception will not help you so please just arrange a time and a place so as we can come and inspect the deceased estate file that has been paid for by the estate. As far as lies go you have not as yet explained why Ian Bult lied about the contents of my mother`s letter in which he stated contained information that my share of the estate should be treated differently from my mother`s other children.

It is obvious that you have not had any contact with other cultures that do respect the role and importance of the mother and you do not understand that to insult the mother by denying her, her final wishes after death is tantamount to a mortal sin.

So please arrange a suitable time for inspection of the file.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:46 AM

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan made a mistake it was $260,000 not $2,600

 

Dear Mr Hannigan,

Your own words confirm that you are a liar. We will not produce any documents for inspection by you.

Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 4 February 2016 9:30 AM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan made a mistake it was $260,000 not $2,600

Dear Micheal

I don’t need to deny being a liar because I don’t lie I work hard and speak the truth. Unlike you who is trained in the art of sophistry I am a plain and simple engineer a doo`er a creator and one that does not run others around in circles. I have no need to rob graves, destroy families hide the truth of commit other criminal acts to make a living. To even infer that I am a liar when we are talking about the disgusting acts that your firm has committed upon my mother`s family is indicative of how detached you and your legal brethren have become from reality. I suggest you watch and listen to the Royal Commission on the sexual abuse of children by our religious institutions and you will be become aware of the parallels of denial.

As I said to you in the beginning of our correspondence you are not the right man for this job as you are a litigation lawyer not a conciliator, by Russell Kennedy placing you in the position you are now in shows how inept the decision making processes are within your law firm and is just another example of the poor management systems contained within your firm and many parts of the legal industry.

When will you have the documents we are requesting available for inspection Mr Main?

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:02 PM

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan made a mistake it was $260,000 not $2,600

You haven’t denied being a liar…

Sent from my iPhone

 

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 3 Feb 2016, at 10:48 pm,

Dear Mr Main

Coming from a lawyer of your ilk that has worked for the law firm Russell Kennedy and cook that not only took $260,000 dollars from a naive farmer who entrusted you with his diary that you lost and lost the case with it. But no that was not enough for you you then demanded a further $120,000 and when he refused to pay your ransom you went ahead and bankrupted him. So thank you for the compliment Mr Main.

But back to business. I am the person appointed by my sister who was the only named person in my mother’s will before Ian Bult lied to her and bullied her from her position as executor to obtain and inspect the deceased estate of our late mother.

I require the file up until probate was granted. I require the report written by special counsel and I require Ian Bult`s brief to special counsel. Since you and your firm claim that you executed my mother`s will according to her wishes and the work was carried out in a professional manner you should not have any resistance in being open and transparent. It appears you have concerns. So to alleviate those concerns do you not think that it would be a good idea to arrange a suitable time for inspection of the documents I am requesting? Using threats of very high legal costs if she stayed despite having the ability to get all of the beneficiaries to sign a contract that the estate be divided equally to . It will not be necessary to provide copying facilities as we can bring a camera.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Wednesday, February 03, 2016 7:48 PM

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Hannigan,

You have no right to make the demands you continue to make, a technique to impose yourself on us, and by attrition, attempt to force us to buckle in the face of your criminal threats. You dishonestly characterise what has been written as ‘belittling your responsibility to your family and your mother’s wishes’ when nothing to that effect was stated at all.

Regrettably, your extreme distortions and inventions expose you as a liar.

Michael Main
Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 3 Feb 2016, at 7:27 pm,:

Mr Main

Why will you not arrange a time for inspection of the file instead of trying to belittle my responsibility to my family and to my mother`s wishes?

I will phone you sometime this week to arrange a suitable time and place for the inspection to occur, or would you like to communicate with the Ethics committee so as to make sure you do not have a conflict of interest because I am sure you have one.

Best Regards

Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Wednesday, February 03, 2016 7:01 PM

Re: The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Hannigan,

We have nothing to add to my earlier email. We will not be producing any file or document for your inspection.

The level of abuse in your emails is so extreme that if you genuinely cannot recognise it, you need medical help.

Michael Main
Sent from my iPhone

To Paul Gleeson of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 3 Feb 2016, at 5:52 pm,

Dear Mr Gleeson

As yet I have not received a reply to my email from you. However I did receive this piece of communication which does not inform me of when we can come and view the file and when you will be sending the report by Special Counsel and Ian Bult`s brief to special counsel.

As far as Mr Main`s response. All I can emphasise.

My communications are not abusive they are only stating the facts as I see them and as any other human being who has been given the legitimate authority by the only named executor on the will to obtain transparency for the family of our mother so as the truth can be verified and we as a family can restore our trust in our mother`s will. It is not up to a law firm who has lied about our mother`s wishes, completely mismanaged her estate and has a terrible conflict of interest by refusing my mother`s family access to the deceased estate file to determine what is the truth and what is not the truth. I suggest you take the matter to the ethics committee along with the evidence that Mr Ian Bult lied from the outset about our mother`s wishes so as to gouge the estate for fees and charges of $80,000 to your firm Russell Kennedy. The only reason the questions are repeated is because your firm refuses to be transparent with the records that you hold. This then leads us to assume you are hiding the truth and cannot be trusted.

By refusing to be transparent and persist in your deception only leaves you open to repeated requests for access to the file. It is strange that the perpetrator of this mess has the arrogance to accuse the person seeking the records which will expose the truth of intimidation and harassment when they are just doing what normal business people do when going about their legitimate business which in this case is to view the legal files of my late mother`s estate for which her estate has paid an unnecessary amount of $80,0000.

I suggest that if you want this matter to be resolved you arrange to behave in a trustworthy manner and arrange a date and time for us to view the files. Also when are you sending us a copy of the Special Counsel report and Mr Ian Bult`s brief to the special counsel.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:43 AM

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Hannigan,

I refer to your email below sent to Mr Gleeson at 6.29 p.m. yesterday. Mr Gleeson will not be responding to your abusive communications. You have no legitimate business with Mr Gleeson or anyone at Russell Kennedy and we will not produce the material you have demanded.  The questions you pose have been answered fully, in writing, and on multiple occasions. Repeatedly restating those questions, whilst ignoring the responses already provided, is simply a transparent pretext for you to continue to harass and intimidate Mr Gleeson.

You are well aware of the above and any claims to the contrary are not genuine. Absurd allegations against Mr Bult, Mr Bolkas, Mr Gleeson, and other members of Russell Kennedy are also false, as you well know.  Your claim to be your family’s spokesman is also false. 

Your behavior is being addressed as previously advised.

Michael Main

To Paul Gleeson of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

2 February 2016 6:29:49 pm AEDT
 The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Gleeson

As yet I have not received a reply to my email from you. However I did receive this piece of communication which does not inform me of when we can come and view the file and when you will be sending the report by Special Counsel and Ian Bult`s brief to special counsel.

As far as Mr Main`s response. All I can emphasise is that it is your firm that ignored the direction of my mother`s family, It was a member of your firm Ian Bult who lied about my mother`s wishes.

It is your firm represented by Ian Bult that refused to allow my sister the only named executor of my mother`s will to read the letter and explain its meaning to Ian Bult.

It was your employee Arthur Bolkas that failed to inform my sister who he should have been representing at the time that Ian Bult lied to her that Ian Bult was actually telling a lie.

It is your firm that has no quality standards in place so as there is an internal review when one of your members in a joint executor-ship with a family member and that person not only disagrees with the family executor but also with every other member of the family.

It is your firm that has and always had a conflict of interest in dealing with my late mother`s estate after Ian Bult and Arthur Bolkas broke my mother’s will in a despicable breach of trust.

You then allowed Ian Bult to bully the only named executor out of her position as executor of my mother`s will.

It is your firm that has changed the meaning of the word truth to mistruth. It is your firm who is denying access to the documents that reveal the truth. It is your firm who are wasting time and it is your firm who feels threatened and abused because someone has actually bought you to account for your rotten behaviour.

It is your firm that wasted $80,000 in legal fees

It is your firm that did not collect $35,000 in rent

It is your firm that bought shares and lost $50.000

Yes bullies and criminals do feel threatened and abused when they are held to account. You are a bunch of real nice fellows are`nt you.

The way adults deal with these matters is to firstly admit to their failures and apologise to their victims, then offer compensation for the hurt they have caused. They do not continue to abuse their victim by prolonging resolution and refusing the most simple requests such as let me look at your paperwork.

All along Mr Gleeson I have asked for access to information and all along your firm has hidden that information just as any criminal hides the evidence to their crimes. So if you would like to stop wasting my time and your own start behaving like adults instead of nasty little privileged school boy bullies and make a time when we can come down and view the estate files as is our right both from a human perspective but also from a consumer perspective as we no longer live in the dark ages where the peasants were abused by their lords and masters.

I do hope you have got the message because you are wasting my time and my mother`s children deserve a resolution to this matter and you have no moral right to deny us that resolution.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Monday, February 01, 2016 9:10 AM

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Hannigan,

You keep repeating questions we have already answered on multiple occasions, apparently because you don’t like the answers. The answers you have been given are the truth, and won’t change, no matter how abusive or threatening you become. You continue to waste your own time and ours.

Michael Main

To Paul Gleeson of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Gleeson

You have been back at work for two weeks and as yet you have not bothered to reply. The matters I am discussing with you are very important as they go to the basis of the integrity of your profession.

I would like to see your legal file that you hold on my mother’s deceased estate. Up until now you have refused to allow me to view the file. I can only assume that you and your firm are hiding the truth. The truth being that you have lied to my mother`s children about her final wishes so as your firm could extract greater fees from her estate, a form of legal theft. Unfortunately you and your associates from the legal class have been infected with such arrogance that you assume you can tread all over the emotions of an innocent family and get away with it. When you are confronted about your crimes you threaten back by insinuating such acts as stalking, you even engage one of your own bully boys to help Mr Main. As yet you have not answered one single question that I have put to you during the past four years. All you have done is made statements without any foundation in support of your firm’s crimes. So please can you set a date so as I can come down with my brother and look at the file of my deceased mother for which the estate has paid for and is our right as human beings to see and is not your right as lawyers IE the devils agents to deny us to see.

Below is a copy of the email that I sent to you two weeks ago and to which due to your arrogance as a lawyer have not been bothered to reply to.

Dear Mr Gleeson.

I understand that you are the trustee of the Elizabeth Hannigan Estate on behalf of Russell Kennedy. I have been given the authority by my Sister to obtain the legal file of my late mother’s estate from your firm. Since you are the trustee I gather it is you who makes the decisions not Mr Main. I gather Mr Main has entered the picture because you feel you need a litigation expert for some unknown reason.

I want to see the legal file of my late mother`s estate including the report by special counsel and Mr Bult`s brief to special counsel as mentioned in a letter to my solicitor John Pavlidies dated 08 09 2004 ref paragraph 5.

Please can you inform me as to when the file will be ready for inspection. If it is convenient perhaps you could consider sending me the report by special counsel and the name of the special counsel.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Hello Michael
As yet you have not set a date for inspection of my mother’s deceased estate file or responded to my email sent 08 01 2016.
I will be in town on Wednesday please could you confirm a suitable time so as I and my brother can come down and inspect the file on Wednesday 20th January 2016.
I have resent the email in case you did not receive it.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

Hello Michael

Have you found the special counsel`s report and the brief that Ian Bult sent to the Special Counsel so as I can come and pick them up. or have you lost them. Perhaps you could give me the name of the special counsel and I could phone that person and see if they have a copy. You have now had about six weeks to get us some information and as yet you have not provided anything.
Is this because your firm has some things to hide that you would not want to reveal. Lying to the children of a person who has died about their wishes is a very evil thing to do, even you know that which is why you may feel threatened. So let us get on with the job and arrange a time for myself and my brother to come down and inspect the file.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, November 26, 2015 12:41 PM
Letter to Mr Hannigan

Attached.

Michael Main
Principal
D +61 3 9609 1512 > F +61 3 9609 6712 > M 0418 387 069 > mmain@rk.com.au

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

Mr Hannigan,

You have no authority and nothing will be produced to you. Over and out.

Michael Main
Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Main

I give Diarmuid Hannigan my brother permission to act on my behalf as the family nominated executor of my mother’s estate as stated in her will to obtain access to the estate legal file that is currently held by your firm Russell Kennedy.

Yours Sincerely

My sister

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Hannigan,

You do not represent the estate. There is no point discussing legal technicalities with you, as you clearly do not comprehend them. I have previously made the suggestion that you seek your legal own advice. You may have done that, and rejected any advice that doesn’t suit you, or you have declined to do so, because “ignorance is bliss”.

My involvement in this matter is as a litigation lawyer to bring your relentless, threatening and stalking behaviour inflicted on Mr Gleeson and Mr Bolkas before the Court to be addressed and dealt with as the Court sees fit. You will be hearing more about this shortly.

Michael Main

 To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, 1 January 2016 11:36 AM

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Main
Please could you explain to me why you have entered the breach as I was of the understanding that Mr Paul Gleeson was now the trustee after replacing Ian Bult. Have you now somehow mysteriously become the trustee of my late mother’s estate?
On the 9th of November I received this email from Paul Gleeson.

Dear Mr Hannigan,

I attach a copy of my letter of 27 October 2015 together with a copy of my letter of 30 October 2012.  Your recent abusive emails and telephone messages are entirely unacceptable and I refuse to tolerate your threatening behaviour.
We are not your solicitors, and our position is in accordance with established legal principles, which you are welcome to verify with your own legal advisers. You are not entitled to inspect our files, and increasing insistent demands for access to our files have reached the point where I must seek legal redress in the event of any repetition.
Yours sincerely
Paul Gleeson

Mr Gleeson states
“We are not your solicitors, and our position is in accordance with established legal principles, which you are welcome to verify with your own legal advisers. You are not entitled to inspect our files, and increasing insistent demands for access to our files have reached the point where I must seek legal redress in the event of any repetition.”
This is another lie told by your firm unless of course you wish to ignore 18 years of hard work that has been carried out by the National Committee on Unifying Ascendancy Laws throughout Australia that recommends that beneficiaries should have a statutory right to view the deceased estate file.

Obviously Mr Gleeson and yourself know better than 18 years of hard work done by a national committee of lawyers who are experts on the matter. I think I know why you know better. It is simply because you are covering up a crime. I think that means that you have a conflict of interest.

So please Mr Main explain to me how you have now taken over the role of Mr Gleeson in managing the affairs of my late mother`s estate and explain how it is that your interpretation of the law relating to access of the deceased estate file is different to that of the National Committee`s view which I would assume would be in accordance with established legal principals. That is that the person who has done the work is accountable to the person who has paid for the work, a principal that as yet Mr Main you do not acknowledge and continue to ignore.

Also so as to prevent any more wasting of my time and my families time please can you arrange a suitable time for inspection of the file. Please could you also send the report of the special counsel as promised by Ian Bult and his brief to the Special Counsel as they are all documents that we are entitled to see and have been paid for by the estate?
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, December 11, 2015 12:13 PM

Dear Mr Hannigan,

We have given our reasons, whether you accept them or not is a matter for you. The file will not be produced for your inspection.

Michael Main

cc Paul Gleeson and Arthur Bolkas

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, 11 December 2015 12:05 PM

Dear Mr Main
I have read the letter. I have also explained to you that we want the part of the file when my sister was the only named executor of my mother’s will when she was a client of Russell Kennedy. That letter and all of your other correspondence does not give any reason whatsoever as to why you can hold that part of the file. So please arrange a time next week so as we can inspect the file.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan-

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, 11 December 2015 11:47 AM

Dear Mr Main
As yet you have not given any reason as to why I cannot inspect the file.
So please can you organise a day for us to come and inspect the file.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, December 11, 2015 11:12 AM

Dear Mr Hannigan,
I refer to your attached email sent at 10.11 am today.  I also attach a copy of my letter to your sister, which I sent to her, care of you, on the 7th of December. Your sister called me this morning because she had not received my reply.  She provided an address and I am mailing her a copy. Despite claiming to act on behalf of your sister, you apparently did not pass on my reply to her.
Reasons have been provided for our refusal to grant you access to a confidential file in the control of another party.  The fact that you dispute those reasons does not indicate any lack of response, but rather your wish to keep arguing, in the hope of getting your own way.
Please take whatever legal action you feel appropriate.  Your threat to visit our office, presumably to inspect a file you know quite clearly will not be provided, is obviously a pretext to initiate some form of confrontation. As previously pointed out to you, this behaviour is unlawful and will not be tolerated.
Michael Main

Michael Main
Principal
D +61 3 9609 1512 > F +61 3 9609 6712 > M 0418 387 069 > mmain@rk.com.au

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

This email and any attachments are confidential.  Only intended recipients may use this email.  You must not disclose, copy or otherwise use this email if you receive it in error.  Instead, please contact us (eg by return email), then delete all copies of this email.  Any privilege is not waived.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Harrigan,
Since you choose not to communicate politely or avoid resorting to abuse, this is the last response you will receive
Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, 11 December 2015 12:32 PM

Dear Mr Main
Please stop lying when you are trying to address your disgraceful and evil conduct.
You have not given any reason as to why we cannot inspect the initial part of the files that your firm holds when my sister was your client prior to probate being granted.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, December 11, 2015 12:13 PM

Dear Mr Hannigan,
We have given our reasons, whether you accept them or not is a matter for you. The file will not be produced for your inspection.
Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, 11 December 2015 12:05 PM

Dear Mr Main
I have read the letter. I have also explained to you that we want the part of the file when my sister was the only named executor of my mothers will when she was a client of Russell Kennedy. That letter and all of your other correspondence does not give any reason whatsoever as to why you can hold that part of the file. So please arrange a time next week so as we can inspect the file.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, 11 December 2015 11:47 AM

Dear Mr Main
As yet you have not given any reason as to why I cannot inspect the file.
So please can you organise a day for us to come and inspect the file.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, December 11, 2015 11:12 AM

Dear Mr Hannigan,
I refer to your attached email sent at 10.11 am today.  I also attach a copy of my letter to your sister, which I sent to her, care of you, on the 7th of December. Your sister called me this morning because she had not received my reply.  She provided an address and I am mailing her a copy. Despite claiming to act on behalf of your sister, you apparently did not pass on my reply to her.
Reasons have been provided for our refusal to grant you access to a confidential file in the control of another party.  The fact that you dispute those reasons does not indicate any lack of response, but rather your wish to keep arguing, in the hope of getting your own way.
Please take whatever legal action you feel appropriate.  Your threat to visit our office, presumably to inspect a file you know quite clearly will not be provided, is obviously a pretext to initiate some form of confrontation. As previously pointed out to you, this behaviour is unlawful and will not be tolerated.
Michael Main

Michael Main
Principal
D +61 3 9609 1512 > F +61 3 9609 6712 > M 0418 387 069 > mmain@rk.com.au

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

 

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

The threat to attend our office “rain hail or shine” to inspect a file we have repeatedly told you will not be produced to you, because you have no entitlement to see it, is precisely what you have been told constitutes a breach of the law.
We will have to proceed as previously advised.
Regards,
Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Sent: Friday, 11 December 2015 7:48 AM
Re: The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Main
Firstly it is you that insults, threatens and your firm that has committed a financial and moral crime not myself or any member of my mother`s family.
You have continually been asked for a reason as to why you will not allow us to view the file and you cannot give one.
Please prepare the file for inspection as I will come down next week and have a look at it rain hail or shine.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Hannigan,
I decline to swap insults with you. You have no entitlement to access our file, and will not be given access without a Court Order. Suggest you get your own advice, we are making no progress.
Michael Main
Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 10 Dec 2015, at 9:16 pm,

Dear Michael
It`s not a case of no or we won`t they are the words of a spoilt little boy.
The problem is that you have to release the file I am requesting or you have to give a damn good reason as to why you won`t release it.
After all if you have done your work in a professional manner the way you should do it you have nothing to be concerned about but if not then you will need to continue to try and hide the file just as you tried to hide the letter that shows Ian Bult lied.
Best Regards
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy

We won’t.
Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 10 Dec 2015, at 8:59 pm,

Dear Mr Main
As yet you have not given any reasons as to why you will not arrange
a suitable time for us to come and view the files we are requesting.
I must assume you are hiding something.
Let me remind you Mr Main. My other entrusted her family into the hands of Russell Kennedy by naming the firm as her executor along with her daughter to work in conjunction with her. The family met with your representative Ian Bult where your wills expert Arthur Bolkas attended. At that meeting it was put to Russell Kennedy via Ian Bult (as at that time he was not a named executor but one of the members of Russell Kennedy who could become an executor.
At that meeting my two sisters and my brother put to Mr Bult that the will should be divided evenly at that because there was provision in the will to do so that my share should be distributed in the same manner as my mother`s other three children Mr Bult did not agree with that proposition and said he had a letter from my mother which stated that my share of the estate should be treated differently from her other children. My sister challenged Mr Bult on this matter and asked him for a copy of the letter. He declined and stated it was a privileged document. Seven years later the document turned up and it proves Mr Bult was lying.
Now your employee Arthur Bolkas was at that first meeting. He was one of two lawyers in the room. One being Mr Bult the representative from Russell Kennedy and one being Arthur. When Ian Bult lied since my sister was Russell Kennedy`s client Arthur Bolkas should have notified her that Ian Bult was lying. He did not do so.
Because Russell Kennedy has no standards in place so as a situation as this is reviewed and corrected internally the lie persisted and Russell Kennedy caused an extra $80,0000 of unnecessary legal fees.
Russell Kennedy then gambled away another $80,000 on loses on the stock market from the money they held in trust they mismanaged a unit my mother had owned and lost a further $35,000 by not collecting rent, and then sold for the unit for $30,000 under market value. As all of this was going on they caused two nervous breakdowns within my mother`s children and comply fractured a well-functioning family.
I have not mentioned the cost of the psychological torture that all of this mess subjected me to as I continually wondered why my mother had deceived me about her love for me.
In your reply to me you have said:
“You make outlandish claims and threats, dish out endless abuse, yet you appear to expect a level of courtesy which you don’t extend. Get your own legal advice and take whatever action you consider appropriate.”
Remember I stand in my mother`s shoes as I have been granted that role by my sister and she has given me permission to obtain the file from your firm. She was and still is your client so please respect her role and respect my position and stop behaving like an arrogant school boy and get down to some real work in resolving the mess your firm created  so as my mother`s family can go about their lives and never have to deal with Russell Kennedy again.
Have a look at what you have done and what you are doing read your own words and take a good look in the mirror Mr Main.

Now when will you have the files ready for inspection?

Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan
PS Michael Main
I have already suggested that Russell Kennedy appoint someone with the correct skills to deal with situation as you are a lawyer experienced in litigation and your skills are not appropriate to deal
with this situation so I suggest you find someone in your firm or you hand the situation over to another firm so as to avoid the conflict of interest that you are trapped in.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:45 PM
Re: The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Hannigan,
You make outlandish claims and threats, dish out endless abuse, yet you appear to expect a level of courtesy which you don’t extend. Get your own legal advice and take whatever action you consider appropriate.
Michael Main
Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

10 Dec 2015, at 3:26 pm,

Dear Michael
That is not a reason it looks like you are covering up a crime as I have already told you. Its time you came clean and sorted out the psychological torture you and your firm have met out upon my mother`s family instead of persisting with this waste of time.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:22 PM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy
No
Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 10 Dec 2015, at 3:16 pm,

Dear Michael
My sister was your client before probate was granted. She has given me the authority to obtain that part of the file and you have no legal grounds to stand upon for refusing to allow us that information including the report prepared by the special council that was promised to her by Ian Bult so please tell me what are your reasons for refusing my request?
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:07 PM
RE: The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy
Dear Mr Hannigan,
The question has already been fully answered. If you cannot understand the answer, that is your problem. We know what you say you want, but you cannot have it.
Michael Main

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 10 December 2015 2:03 PM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy

Dear Michael
You have said that I cannot view the file because my sister did not participate in Probate. Prior to probate she was the only named executor in my mother`s will and she was a client of your firm Russell Kennedy. I want to view the file you have in relation to when she was your client prior to probate being granted. Please can you answer that specific question and stop dithering.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:08 PM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy

For the last time, that question has already being answered.

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 10 December 2015 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy
Dear Mr Main
I have responded to your reply to my sister as I have the authority from her to act on her behalf and therefore sit in my mother`s shoes. Again I am sending you that response and would like to know when the part of the file that I have mentioned will be available for inspection.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan.
See copy below.

Dear Mr Main
My sister Is the family member executor named by my mother. The letter dated 30 10 1998 states that the firm Russell Kennedy is to work in conjunction with my sister. It was only because Ian Bult at a meeting on 18 08 2004 lied to my sister at a meeting at Russell Kennedy at which Arthur Bolkas the wills expert employed by Russell Kennedy was in attendance. It was due to that lie and the fact that the employee Arthur Bolkas did not do his job as a lawyer working for a law firm that was asked to work with my sister by informing her that Ian Bult a partner of your firm Russell Kennedy was lying about the contents of a letter dated 30 10 1998 which your firm refused my sister to view that she did not join in probate of the will. However she did reserve her rights to join in the probate of her mother`s will as also I notice is the same for you.
If you want to split hairs at this stage that is fine by me but I want to collect the parts of the file prior to probate being applied for by Russell Kennedy that you hold and have charged my  mother`s estate when my sister was the only name executor. I would also like to collect the correspondence from Russell Kennedy to the special counsel and it`s response as was promised by Ian Bult to my sister.
So please could you arrange a suitable time for my brother and myself to inspect the file.
As far as contacting my sister, I would advise against doing that. You firm has caused her to have a nervous breakdown and I would not want to see her suffer again. I realise you have not one once of compassion and I have already told you that you do not have the skill set to handle this matter as you are an expert in legal litigation. To handle this issue you need to have a soul which means you have compassion and some intelligence unfortunately you have a serious conflict of interest and if you ever had any of the required skill set it has been eroded from you over time.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:27 AM
RE: The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy
Dear Mr Harrigan,
Since you drafted the letter your sister sent to me, you should read the reply I sent, care of you.
Please stop communicating with me, I will not be responding.
Michael Main

 

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 10 December 2015 11:24 AM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan vs Russell Kennedy
Dear Mr Main
It appears as if you have time to send my brother threats (See below) but you do not have time to deal with the real issue at hand, which is to arrange a suitable time for us to inspect the file. Please can you concentrate on your main area of work and arrange a suitable time to make the file available.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Hannigan,
I will not correspond with again you because you cannot or will not communicate with a normal level of courtesy.  In fact mail to this firm is opened and the contents distributed without envelopes. I
did not see the envelope your sister’s letter came in . The expression “my brother and I now have you firmly in the spotlight” is obviously intended to be intimidating, and I regard it as such. Any further such communication from you or your brother will trigger the application to the Court already foreshadowed.
Our correspondence is now closed.
Michael Main

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Monday, December 07, 2015 10:10 AM

Dear Mr Hannigan,
I  attach our reply to your sisters  letter of 29 November,
which you prepared.
I am sending this care of yourself as she did not provide a return address.
Michael Main

Michael Main
Principal
D +61 3 9609 1512 > F +61 3 9609 6712 > M 0418 387 069 >
mmain@rk.com.au

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600
This email and any attachments are confidential.  Only intended recipients may use this email.  You must not disclose, copy or otherwise use this email if you receive it in error.  Instead, please contact us (eg by return email), then delete all copies of this email. Any privilege is not waived. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
Legislation.

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Hannigan,
I will not correspond with again you because you cannot or will not communicate with a normal level of courtesy.  In fact mail to this firm is opened and the contents distributed without envelopes. I did not see the envelope your sister’s letter came in .The expression “my brother and I now have you firmly in the spotlight” is obviously intended to be intimidating, and I regard it as such. Any further such communication from you or your brother will trigger the application to the Court already foreshadowed.

Our correspondence is now closed.

Receipt acknowledged.

Any phone calls or further contact will trigger action as previously stated.
Sent from my iPhone

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

On 2 Dec 2015, at 9:52 pm,

Dear Mr Main
Please read this letter and come out of your sheltered tree of hubris. Realise that you are dealing with real people who have been hurt by the despicable actions of your law firm and start to do something about it. At school we could run to the headmaster. In life when we make a mistake as adults we have to fess up and sort it out. Remember Mr Main life is not always about the money and those who think they hold the power, it is more about how we behave as people to one another.
Yours Sincerely
Diarmuid Hannigan.

 

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, November 26, 2015 12:41 PM
Letter to Mr Hannigan

Attached.

Michael Main
Principal

w2 001

 

w3 001

MR MAIN AND ARTHUR BOLKAS

Letter to Arthur Bolkas                                                                                  11 11 15

Dear Arthur

I spoke with you briefly on Wednesday 28 10 10. Unfortunately you were so defensive you hung up the phone prior to me asking you a question. So as to not aggravate the situation I have now written the question to you.

Arthur please could you tell me why at a meeting with my mother’s children at the Offices of Russell Kennedy on 18 08 2004 when Ian Bult the solicitor who wrote my mother’s will stated it was not my mother ‘wish to have all of her children treated equally and stated that he had a letter to support his claim which subsequently proved to be a lie’ did you not inform my sister (who you were representing at the time since you were being paid from her estate and she was the nominated family executor) that Ian Bult was lying?

Arthur if your excuse for failing to inform my sister that Ian Bult was lying to my mother`s children about her final wishes was that you did not read the letter, then please explain your incompetence?

Arthur why then did you also support Ian Bult and the members of Russell Kennedy who were all  nominated as executors by my mother in concealing that letter from my sister?

Arthur you may telephone me on 0401416053 or you can write to me and answer the questions.

As you are most likely aware the actions of Ian Bult which were supported by yourself as the wills expert at Russell Kennedy have destroyed a well-functioning first generation family. You should all be congratulated. But on a more serious note the questions do require an honest and straight forward answer which I would appreciate within in the next seven days or else I will have no option but to phone you again.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid.

To Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Main

If your firm had done a credible job on managing my late mother’s estate you would welcome my desire to inspect your work. Instead you seem to be reticent in showing the file. Anyone who feels so threatened by what is a normal inquiry by a person who has the authority to enquire about a completely reasonable matter which relates to ensuring their late mother`s wishes have been met must have something terrible to hide and must feel very frightened about that secret being divulged.

Unfortunately for you Mr Main my life experience is based upon reality yours is based on playing out a role for other people. As I have stated previously when you disrespect a person’s mothers final wishes you disrespect her family and when you do that you have committed a terrible sin and you need to sort it out.

As yet nobody from Russell Kennedy has been able to furnish any evidence to support Mr Bult`s and Russell Kennedy`s theory that my mother did not wish for her estate to be divided equally amongst her four children and until you can supply that evidence which I and my two sisters and brother know you cannot, your firm has lied and hurt an innocent family through its abuse.

As yet you have not nominated a time for inspection of the file. It would be good if you could arrange that time so as I do not have to continue to write to you and be accused of threatening and bullying behaviour in the normal course of business.

I await your nominated time.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:40 PM                                                               The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Hannigan,

We act for Mr Bolkas. Your threats of contact constitute stalking, and you should stop now.

You have been warned.

Michael Main

 

Michael Main
Principal

 D +61 3 9609 1512  >  F  +61 3 9609 6712  >  M  0418 387 069  >  mmain@rk.com.au

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

 

This email and any attachments are confidential.  Only intended recipients may use this email.  You must not disclose, copy or otherwise use this email if you receive it in error.  Instead, please contact us (eg by return email), then delete all copies of this email.  Any privilege is not waived.  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

To Arthur Bolkas past employee of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Thursday, 25 February 2016 8:44 AM
To: Arthur Bolkas
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Arthur

I am still waiting for a time and place so as I can inspect and copy the files you hold of my deceased mother`s estate and a response to this email. Perhaps I will have to phone you to make sure you have received it.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

 

To Arthur Bolkas past employee of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, February 12, 2016 1:50 PM                          the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy                                       The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Arthur

I have received a letter from Michael Main of Russell Kennedy. It does not answer my questions and I have enclosed my response to him and to you. I am still waiting for your answers as how you could sit in a room and not inform my sister who you were representing that Ian Bult was lying to her.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

 

Mr Paul Gleeson

To Mr Paul Gleeson of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Gleeson

Please can you tell me when the file of my late mother’s estate will be available for inspection? Please could you also refrain from concocting stories such as the insinuations that I have engaged in abusive and threatening behaviour.

I may add that your response so far is expected and is typical of how the thieves I have had to deal with in my life behave when asked to become accountable for their criminal behaviour by engaging in threatening behaviour.

Let me remind you Mr Gleeson that I am a human being who has been abused by you and your law firm and by attempting to use legal humbug to suppress my human and consumer rights to view my deceased mother`s file that you possess and has been paid for by her estate will not work and is only wasting my time. So please arrange a suitable time for me and my brother to inspect and copy the file.

As far as you continuing to send me the letter of 20 10 2012, you have my response and you have not as yet been able to answer the questions contained within that response. In other words the letter of 20 10 2012 is a fantasy created by the members of Russell Kennedy and is not supported by any evidence. Unfortunately for you and your law firm the evidence shows how badly your firm behaved and how Ian Bult lied about my mother`s wishes.

So have some courage Mr Gleeson and arrange a time so as I can inspect the file.

Yours Sincerely.

Diarmuid Hannigan

I have also included a letter I have sent to Arthur Bolkas who also seems to be hiding from the truth.

From Mr Paul Gleeson of the             Melbourne law firm          Russell Kennedy

From: Paul Gleeson                                                                                       Monday, November 09, 2015 3:56 PM                                                mailto:charada@mira.net                                                                            Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan [RK-RK_Legal.FID180595]

 

Dear Mr Hannigan,

I attach a copy of my letter of 27 October 2015 together with a copy of my letter of 30 October 2012.  Your recent abusive emails and telephone messages are entirely unacceptable and I refuse to tolerate your threatening behaviour.

We are not your solicitors, and our position is in accordance with established legal principles, which you are welcome to verify with your own legal advisors. You are not entitled to inspect our files, and increasing insistent demands for access to our files have reached the point where I must seek legal redress in the event of any repetition.

Yours sincerely

Paul Gleeson

 

Paul Gleeson
Principal

 D +61 3 9609 1692  >  F  +61 3 9609 6892  >  M  0417 370 836  >  pgleeson@rk.com.au

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

 

This email and any attachments are confidential.  Only intended recipients may use this email.  You must not disclose, copy or otherwise use this email if you receive it in error.  Instead, please contact us (eg by return email), then delete all copies of this email.  Any privilege is not waived.  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

To Mr Paul Gleeson of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Dear Mr Gleeson

Thank you for acknowledging the receipt of my email of 19 09 2014.

Unfortunately you have not addressed the most important issue of permitting my mother`s children access to her estate file, considering the history of mismanagement, by your firm in the management of her estate. Most particularly the fact that your representative Ian Bult refused to take on board the recommendations from *******(my sister) and my mother`s other children and then went ahead and concealed the letter that he was using to back his decision and that he lied about its contents, does raise concerns from the beneficiaries (my mother`s children) about the way your firm managed her estate.

My Sister the executor and my other sister from day 1 dismissed Ian Bult as a man who was lying and a lawyer who was only motivated by money. They said they knew mum backwards and there was nothing new in any letter Ian Bult claimed to possess. My brother Tim Hannigan gave Ian Bult the benefit of the doubt, went onto anti-anxiety medication trying to figure out what the problem was, what was in the letter, what is the family dysfunction, all he wanted to do was to have transparency and create resolution within our family. He asked and asked and at no point was told anything, because with hindsight there was nothing to tell. His sisters and brother were right.

It is obvious in the interests of truth, trust and transparency that you address this issue and allow my mother`s children access to the estate file.

It is a matter of public concern that a law firm can behave in the way your firm has, where it is evident that concealment, dishonesty, and abuse of power, were all mechanisms used by your firm to obtain its own objective of extracting $80,000 in fees from the estate. Ian Bult from the outset, stated that he was entitled to a straight 10 percent executer fee of our mother`s modest 800k estate. This was Ian Bult`s clear objective which he made clear to my mother`s children and further reinforced at meetings in collusion with Arthur Bolkas and that is what the estate finally paid to your law firm. It was clear to Tim Hannigan, at his first meeting with Ian Bult that he was angry; his body language was a clear display of his mood as he sat at the meeting with his arms folded and his heels digging into the floor of the office.

The reason I assume this occurred was that Ian Bult had a bee in his bonnet over changes to my mother`s will shortly prior to her death, which replaced the executors fee with an hourly rate fee that would have been considerably lower, as the estate was a fairly simple affair to sort out and that the complications were created by the way your law firm managed and still is managing the situation. Not to mention that there appears to be a breakdown in the relationship between my mother and Ian Bult over another matter where Ian Bult charged my mother fees for communicating with him regarding the amount of a legal bill! The position in this situation depicts an elderly woman close to death who is too frail to deal with her lawyer`s abuse but has placed safe guards in her will by nominating the law firm as her executor instead of Ian Bult in conjunction with one of her daughters. Her trust of the legal profession and her naivety of the Australian Legal landscape unwittingly deceived her. Russell Kennedy`s incompetence in permitting the lawyer Ian Bult who had written the will to become the executor is inexcusable. You have already been asked to supply records of how this decision came about and have refused to comment. The behaviour of your law firm when managing my mother`s estate is behaviour that makes every Australian family vulnerable and although it may have been behaviour that has been ignored it is certainly behaviour that is unacceptable and erodes our core human and civilized values.

These are core human and civilized values built on the shoulders of greatness, and into the democratic society that we now inhabit a society that believes in open discussion to push forward reform for the betterment of our communities. The acknowledgement of the stolen generation the Royal Commission into the abuse of children, the enquiry into access to justice are all part of that democratic process and for you to suggest it is right to thwart that process from a position of perceived power is an aberration. It is an outdated construct, one that both my parents throughout their lives worked hard to educate people against and even fought in wars to defeat it. Our father headed the Legal Studies department at Melbourne University and was pivotal in introducing legal studies into the year 11 and 12 curriculum.

It is obvious to even the most simple minded that the reason you will not grant access to the estate file by my mother`s children is because it will reveal the truth. The truth being that your firm acted negligently towards my mother`s estate. The negligence involved lying, bullying, abuse of power, financial incompetence, a breach of trust and concealment of critical information. Unfortunately it appears that you have failed to realise that these techniques although sustainable in the short term are not a long term option and continue to persist by refusing to grant access to the estate file and by issuing threatening statements as any bully would do when he or she is exposed.

Again I suggest you show some courage, compassion and intelligence and work to resolving this situation. first of all by allowing my mother`s children their rights to have access to the estate file.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Mr Paul Gleeson of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Tuesday, September 23, 2014 5:27 PM                                                            Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan [RK-RK_Legal.FID180595]

Dear Mr Hannigan

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 19 September 2014.  As you are well aware from my earlier correspondence, I will not engage any further communication in relation to your repeated requests.

The firm reserves its rights in respect of your further defamatory conduct.

Yours sincerely

  Paul Gleeson
Principal

 D +61 3 9609 1638  >  F  +61 3 9609 6892  >  M  0417 370 836  >  PGleeson@rk.com.au

 

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

 

    To Mr Paul Gleeson of the                 Melbourne law firm          Russell Kennedy

Friday, 19 September 2014 12:23 PM
Estate of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Gleeson

Again I am sending you a copy of email sent in February of this year which as yet you have not had the courage to reply to.

I realise that grave robbing is part of the income stream of your firm and goes unpunished in Australia when practiced by the legal elite. Unfortunately the fact that it is not considered a crime by the establishment does not exonerate you and the other member of Russell Kennedy who were nominated as executors to my mother’s estate from your moral obligations to her family. As the actions of your form clearly indicate an intent to commit a fraud which has decimated her family. I realise that it would be impossible for you to find a thing called a heart as that would have been obliterated long age, perhaps before it even had a chance to form but it is now time for you and your partners to show some courage find compassion, have some intelligence and do the correct thing by releasing the estate file to its rightful owner back to my mother’s children. Furthermore you may also gain the courage to reply to my email please see below.

You may also be interested in the above attachment which is a verbal submission too the productivity commissions hearings in Melbourne concerning access to justice.

I look forward to your reply and to a time which is convenient so as we can pick up the estate file.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

Dear Mr Gleeson

Thank you for finally responding to my email of 02 11 13.

1)     You have no rational reason for denying my mother’s family access to the estate file, and have a serious conflict of interest in doing so since it was the lies told by your firms representative Ian Bult to my mother’s children and the concealment of the letter that your representative Ian Bult determined to be part of my mother’s will and lied about its contents. For the members of your firm to have placed themselves in a position of complete dominance over my mother’s family through these lies and the concealment of the letter which enabled your firm to become the sole executors of the estate and trustees of the bogus trust that you set up based upon a lie so as to extort at least $80,000 in fees and charges from the estate whilst at the same time destroying a family and through your mismanagement cost the estate at least $200,000 in value by.

2)     Failing to collect rent on the unit

3)     Selling the unit for well under its market value

4)     Losing money by gambling on shares

5)     Failing to discuss the sale of my mother’s shares with her family

6)     Failing to take on board the opinions of her own children with regards to the interpretation of her will, mind you her four children had lived with her for a total of 180 years where as the members of Russell Kennedy if ever they had met her in person had only ever communicated with her for a total of a most 30 hours, a real step forward for arrogance. In fact I still cannot believe how evil a person can be.

As a result of these crimes you have in your possession the estate file, a file that you have been well paid for by my mother’s estate, a file created by a fraud committed by a principal of your company and you have the arrogance to prevent my mother’s family from viewing that file and you consider your actions to not be criminal. God help anyone of your clients, as it is obvious that you are devoid of any rational thought processes.

I have also asked you for:

  1. The safe guards the firm had in place to prevent errors by your firm in managing a deceased estate.
  2. The procedures your firm uses when it decides against the wishes of the deceased children to make an uneven distribution between them knowing from history the disastrous consequences that can occur to family unity.
  3. The internal document that delegates Ian Bult to act on behalf of your firm to be the executor as I gather he was just representing your firm when he lied to my sister the family nominated executor. As yet you have refused to forward this document.
  4. The report from special council that was mentioned by Ian Bult and that a copy of this report would be sent to the family nominated executor which was never done as the process caused her to have a nervous breakdown and you continue to refuse to provide a copy of this report.
  5. I have asked you who Arthur Bolkas was representing at the meeting 18 10 2004 and have corrected you on your own mistruth and requested your internal documentation on his role at that meeting.

You continue to refuse to provide these documents, which means you are protecting your own criminal incompetence in the way your firm managed my mother’s estate and you have a serious conflict of interest. I gather it is the responsibility of the legal profession to identify when they have that conflict and act accordingly.

I would suggest that you go to an independent entity before attempting to deny to me your firms criminal acts or whether you have the legal right to deny my mother’s children access to her estate file particularly since the file was built upon a fraud committed by your firm.

Sooner or later your firm will have to deal with the issues I have raised as they amount to an abuse of fiduciary trust of the highest order. To continue to state that you will not respond is one of the tools used by an abuser and a bully when they think they have ultimate power. We are seeing this in the multitude of commissions that are currently exposing this terrible truth of abuse by some of our most trusted institutions.

As always I would be only too happy to have these matters resolved but that will require you and your firm to cooperate by providing the requested information in an open and transparent way. This will require you to transcend from the shelter of your mirrored tower and descend to earth. Earth being the place where people live their lives and resolve their issues without hiding the truth.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

       From Michael Main of the              Melbourne law firm           Russell Kennedy

Friday, January 01, 2016 1:47 PM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Hannigan,

You do not represent the estate. There is no point discussing legal technicalities with you, as you clearly do not comprehend them. I have previously made the suggestion that you seek your legal own advice. You may have done that, and rejected any advice that doesn’t suit you, or you have
declined to do so, because “ignorance is bliss”.
My involvement in this matter is as a litigation lawyer to bring your relentless, threatening and stalking behaviour inflicted on Mr Gleeson and Mr Bolkas before the Court to be addressed and dealt with as the Court sees fit. You will be hearing more about this shortly.

Michael Main

        To Michael Main of the                    Melbourne law firm            Russell Kennedy

Friday, 1 January 2016 11:36 AM
The true wishes of Elizabeth Hannigan

Dear Mr Main

Please could you explain to me why you have entered the breach as I was of the understanding that Mr Paul Gleeson was now the trustee after replacing Ian Bult. Have you now somehow mysteriously become the trustee of my late mother’s estate.

On the 9th of November I received this email from Paul Gleeson.

Dear Mr Hannigan,

I attach a copy of my letter of 27 October 2015 together with a copy of my letter of 30 October 2012.  Your recent abusive emails and telephone messages are entirely unacceptable and I refuse to tolerate your threatening behaviour.

We are not your solicitors, and our position is in accordance with
established legal principles, which you are welcome to verify with your own legal advisors. You are not entitled to inspect our files, and increasing insistent demands for access to our files have reached the point where I must seek legal redress in the event of any repetition.

Yours sincerely

Paul Gleeson

Mr Gleeson states
“We are not your solicitors, and our position is in accordance with
established legal principles, which you are welcome to verify with your own legal advisors. You are not entitled to inspect our files, and increasing insistent demands for access to our files have reached the point where I must seek legal redress in the event of any repetition.”

This is another lie told by your firm unless of course you wish to ignore 18 years of hard work that has been carried put by the National Committee on Unifying Ascendency Laws throughout Australia that recommends that beneficiaries should have a statutory right to view the deceased estate file.

Obviously Mr Gleeson and you know better than 18 years of hard work done by a national committee of lawyers who are experts on the matter. I think I know why you know better. It is simply because you are covering up a crime. I think that means that you have a conflict of interest.

So please Mr Main explain to me how you have now taken over the role of Mr Gleeson in managing the affairs of my late mother`s estate and explain how it is that your interpretation of the law relating to access of the deceased estate file is different to that of the National Committee`s view which I would assume would be in accordance with established legal principals. That is that the person who has done the work is accountable to the person who has paid for the work, a principal that as yet Mr Main you do not acknowledge and continue to ignore.

Also so as to prevent any more wasting of my time and my families time please can you arrange a suitable time for inspection of the file. Please could you also send the report of the special counsel as promised by Ian Bult and his brief to the Special Counsel as they are all documents that we are entitled to see and have been paid for by the estate.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

From Michael Main of the Melbourne law firm Russell Kennedy

Friday, December 11, 2015 12:13 PM

Dear Mr Hannigan,

We have given our reasons, whether you accept them or not is a matter for you. The file will not be produced for your inspection.

Michael Main

            To Michael Main of the                    Melbourne law firm              Russell Kennedy

cc Paul Gleeson and Arthur Bolkas
Friday, 11 December 2015 12:05 PM

Dear Mr Main

I have read the letter. I have also explained to you that we want the part of the file when my sister was the only named executor of my mother’s will when she was a client of Russell Kennedy. That letter and all of your other correspondence does not give any reason whatsoever as to why you can hold that part of the file. So please arrange a time next week so as we can inspect the file.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

      From Michael Main of the                 Melbourne law firm              Russell Kennedy

Friday, December 11, 2015 11:47 AM
Please read the letter.

           To Michael Main of the                    Melbourne law firm           Russell Kennedy

Friday, 11 December 2015 11:47 AM

Dear Mr Main

As yet you have not given any reason as to why I cannot inspect the file. So please can you organise a day for us to come and inspect the file.

Yours Sincerely

Diarmuid Hannigan

          From Michael Main of the              Melbourne law firm            Russell Kennedy

Friday, December 11, 2015 11:12 AM

Dear Mr Hannigan,

I refer to your attached email sent at 10.11 am today.  I also attach a copy of my letter to your sister, which I sent to her, care of you, on the 7th of December. Your sister called me this morning because she had not received my reply.  She provided an address and I am mailing her a copy. Despite claiming to act on behalf of your sister, you apparently did not pass on my reply to her.

Reasons have been provided for our refusal to grant you access to a
confidential file in the control of another party.  The fact that you
dispute those reasons does not indicate any lack of response, but rather your wish to keep arguing, in the hope of getting your own way.

Please take whatever legal action you feel appropriate.  Your threat to
visit our office, presumably to inspect a file you know quite clearly will not be provided, is obviously a pretext to initiate some form of
confrontation. As previously pointed out to you, this behaviour is unlawful and will not be tolerated.

Michael Main

Michael Main
Principal
D +61 3 9609 1512 > F +61 3 9609 6712 > M 0418 387 069 > mmain@rk.com.au

RUSSELL KENNEDY PTY LTD   >  rk.com.au
Level 12, 469 La Trobe Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel:  +61 3 9609 1555 > Fax: +61 3 9609 1600

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.