since 1991 your Lipstadt trial index the fight over your possessions your Deborah Lipstadt dossier The Thieves Fall Out: DLA, solicitors for Louise Brittain of Baker Tilly, official Trustee appointed to seize Mr Irving’s estate, write to Lipstadt’s solicitors, February 13, 2004 [To:] Mishcon de Reya DLA DX 37954 Kingsway SR/SRC/103525/120002/3309585 By DX and fax 020 7404 5982 13 February 2004 Dear Sirs We refer to your letter of 12 February 2004.

[ not posted ] We are not able to agree paragraph 3 of the order suggested by you. We reiterate that it is our recollection that the court considered that the Trustees were the appropriate persons to instruct an independent expert in relation to Mr Irving ‘s assets. Quite apart from this being the Court’s view, it must be right that the independence of any expert appointed must be beyond question. Otherwise, Mr Irving will inevitably seek to challenge the valuation evidence obtained.

Regretfully, we must put on record that when Mr [Tobias] Jersak [ history “expert” hired by Deborah Lipstadt ] carried out inspection of the items removed from 81 Duke Street, on behalf of our client [Louise Brittain, the Trustee] he sought to remove certain documentation held in the Trustees’ custody . You have already been made aware of this fact by our client. As a result, our client inevitably has concerns about your client’s impartiality in this matter.

In addition you seem to forget that the key here is to ascertain whether the items in question have a realisable value so that they can be realised for the benefit of Mr Irving’s creditors. Your correspondence consistently refers to the “historical’ value of the items. It is not the task of the bankruptcy courts to consider whether assets have an historical value.

We would reiterate at this point that, despite significant efforts, our client has not been able to find any person who is prepared to pay for any items in her possession. Your client has been asked whether or not she is prepared to make an offer for the items held. No offer has been forthcoming. We note that you intend to ask for this matter to be re-listed.

It is our clear recollection that the Registrar informed all parties at the hearing on Monday that if there was a dispute as to the terms of the order he would consider the matter further on paper. We therefore believe it premature to seek further hearing of this matter at this stage. As previously set out, if you do take steps to re-list this matter without referring all relevant correspondence

See Also