Below is copied page 1 of a two page letter dated the 6th of February, 1995 written to me by solicitor Alison Stott.
While Stott's letter shows the contrary statements that she wrote in it, it is of interest that she heads it, RE: Our Client: Shirley Carr. On the 17th of January 1996 Stott declared to the Newcastle County Court that she was not in fact acting for Carr at all but told the court that she had only been assisting Carr. Carr confirmed to the court on the 17th of January 1995 the arrangement she had with Stott. Anything that Carr could not deal with she sent to Stott for her to assist with. During the approximately one and a half years of going into court with Carr, Stott had taken on the work of preparing the judges bundle. Without the knowledge of the court she then secretly passed it on for Carr to carry out. That amounted to fraud by both Carr and Stott. In the bankruptcy that had been rigged for me, I was ordered to pay Stotts fees and barrister Merritt's fees as well. As Carr's assistant Stott had no right to any fees for the first one and a half years. That was a pecuniary advantage gained by means of fraud.
When Carr unlawfully prepared the judges bundle she later agreed that she left out any documents from the judges bundle that she considered as not being important. One such document was her application and subsequent refusal by the Durham County Court for consolidation of the three actions DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650. The three cases were tried as a consolidated action instead of one after the other. It was also known by barrister Mr Richard Merritt and solicitor Stott that the cases were not subject of consolidation. Evidence shows this to be fact. Why did he, as an officer of the Courts, allow that situation to continue throughout?
In Stott's letter copied below she writes, " Our client will be supporting her application for adverse possession of the land to the side of the house with Statutory Declarations from Robert William Green, Frederick Seadon, and Paul Graney and we enclose copies of all three documents for your information." Stott was then sent copies of letters that Paul Graney had written to my father. That was only very shortly before Graney swore his statutory declaration that had in fact already been used to lodge a caution by means of fraud and perjury at HM Durham District Land Registry in the matter of case NE401650 in 1988. The letters that Graney had sent my father in 1988 confirmed that what Graney had sworn perjured information in his statutory declaration. In those circumstances the entry on the Register at the Durham District Land Registry had been made by means of fraud. Following Stott having received that evidence nothing more was heard from her on the matter. In those circumstances she became implicated in fraud by being party to its concealment.
Why did recorder John Fryer-Spedding rule on so many of the matters that Stott had already conceded? Did in fact Carr include Stott's letter of the 6th February 1995 into the judges bundle, had it been left out from it by either Carr or Stott? Yes Stott's letter was paginated in the judges budle but did that really mean that it was included? After all the pagination was done by either Carr or Stott. There was no authorisation on the Durham County Court files to allow either Stott or Carr to prepare the judges bundle. That was verified by the Durham County Court manager, Mr K. Hunt in a search he made for that authority last year. Afterwards I was also allowed to search the court files and found no such authority. By now I believe that both Carr and Stott should have been brought to trial for their part in serious fraud. It is the underlying reasons for this not having taken place which is of even more concern to me.
Go to page two of Stotts letter of the 6th of February 1995.
Go to a copy of Graney's statutory declaration.
Go to general index
Go to home page.