Here is copied the map submitted to my solicitor and the courts. The crosshatched area was land subject of case NE401650. Carr claimed that the land was hers and implied that she had purchased it when she bought the property outlined in red ink. All conveyance of property must be by deed. There was no such deed. The crosshatched land was used by my late father and I for nearly thirty years without any adverse claim being made against us. We had thus attained title to that land by adverse possession. The period of time allowed for title to land by adverse possession of it is twelve years. Even if Carr had been using that land, which she most certainly had not, she could not have used it for the required period of 12 years as she had not lived next to it for anywhere near that time.

Despite the facts Carr has been allowed to register that land in her name which is not only against the law, but is an act of theft. The land had also comprised as the right of way to the rear of our property No. 16A, which is outlined in blue ink, since before the turn of the 1900's. Since recorder John Fryer-Speddings judgement made by means of false instruments in October of 1996 the only way to service the rear of my home has been by route through the living quarters of my home. There is no other way now to get to it. The drive at the front of No 16, also comprised as the drive to No. 16A and that was the way it was at he time and after the conveyance of No 16A to us in 1976 as agreed in affidavits submitted to the courts. As such that right remains as being part of the rights with my property of which I am deprived. All rights etc, existing at the time of a conveyance of property are deemed to be conveyed with that property. Recorder John H Fryer-Spedding would seem to have me believe that as a judge with Chancery experience he did not know that. I am also being deprived of the use of the drive and therefore again my right. Recorder John Fryer-Spedding agreed that it was his intention to deprive me of my rights. This is confirmed by his statements which are within his approved transcript of judgement.

In addition, as crime has been used and allowed by the Durham County Court it cannot reasonably be considered as being independent and impartial to any proceedings that I put before it in the present circumstances. This is why I require that my allegations in the matter of the cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal or authority established by law as required under the European Human Rights Convention. As has been confirmed by my correspondence with Fraser Kemp MP, there is no such authority in the UK. This is a gross breach of the rights of all UK citizens. Fraser Kemp MP has written that he is not permitted to ask questions in the House of Commons after he was shown huge evidence of judicial and other crime used against me. My correspondence with him has shown that there is no authority in the UK who will act on the matter of judicial crime. This is now a constitutional issue in which Mr Kemp MP remains silent.