Solicitor Alison Stott had gone into Durham County Court for around one and a half years from mid 1994 with Shirley Carr. It seemed that Stott was Carr's advocate (i.e. acting for her). Then in January of 1996 Stott declared to the Newcastle County Court that up until that day she had not been acting for Carr but had only been assisting her. She made that declaration before then recorder John Fryer-Spedding , barrister Michelle Temple and others. Stott's declaration to the Court in January 1996 is supported by affidavits detailing it.

During the time Stott had been Carr's assistant she had accepted work from the courts. No assistant of a litigant is allowed to accept such work from any court. Stott would certainly have known that. As Carr's assistant she had accepted the work from the Durham County Court presided over by District Judge Cutrhbertson of drafting the wording of joint undertakings agreed in principle between Carr and I. The proceedings were then adjourned and my wife and I returned home believing that the proceedings would recommence on another day and we would be informed of the date and time it was to take place. That did not happen. Stott returned back to DJ Cuthbertson sometime later that day. DJ Cuthbertson then granted Carr an injunction which she had asked for in full. It was to prevent me from taking further evidence against Carr.

I have never accepted the lawful validity of the way that injunction was granted. Fraud had been used in the granting of it. In July of 1996 I was imprisoned at Durham for allegedly breaching the injunction given by DJ Cuthbertson. The sentence imposed on me by Circuit Judge Helen Paling was three months. The latter judge was to feature in something else later where she denied me permission to speak while I was representing my father in the matter of land subject of Newcastle County Court case No. NE401650. It was on that same day as my appearance before CJ Paling day that Carr falsely alleged to Northumbria Police that I had approached and threatened harassment of her. That was more of her lies. After I was convicted of the latter it came to light that solicitor Mr C D Hughes of Harding Swinburn & Jackson, 58 Frederick Street, Sunderland, had in my files a letter from the Crown Prosecution Service. It stated that a security officer in the Sunderland County Court had told Northumbria police that he remembered the day of Carr's allegation against me. He told police that nothing of note had taken place in the court at the time of Carr's allegation. The letter was never produced in my defence and remained hidden from the courts. Originally the letter had been sent to my former solicitor A.N. Jackson, a Freemason belonging as he later told me to a judicial Masonic Lodge. His company is based in Hartlepool. Though Northumbria Police later agreed that the evidence in that letter was crucial to my defence and agreed to investigate it, as usual with police forces with substantial membership of Freemasonry they never carried out their duty to do that. Senior Northumbria police officers agreed that withholding such evidence as that letter was itself a criminal offence. Of course the question remains as to why, when they too had been aware of the existence of that letter did they, along with the Crown Prosecution Service, charge me with that alleged offence of which I was convicted?

In addition, while solicitor Stott was Carr's assistant, she illegally accepted work from the Durham County Court of preparing what is known as the judges bundles (files ready for use in the trials). She then secretly passed on that work for Carr to carry out. As Carr's assistant, she would of course have been expected to do that. Carr then left out documentation from those bundles. It included her application to the Durham County Court in 1994 for consolidation of the three court actions DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 underway between us. On June the 1^st 1994 her application had been refused at the Durham County Court by DJ Scott-Phillips. An order was made that cases DH400950, DH400898, where I was the plaintiff and NE401650 where Carr was the Plaintiff were not to be consolidated (i.e. they were not to be tried as a single action). Then in October of 1996 then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding falsely alleged that the cases had been subject of consolidation and then tried them as a single case. More about the recorders acts are published on this web site.

Barrister Richard Merritt represented Carr before Fryer-Spedding commencing October 21^st 1996 at the Newcastle County Court. I had to represent myself because legal aid had been withdrawn from me for reasons which again were untrue. That happened shortly before the cases were to be tried. I later became aware of significant membership of Freemasonry at the Legal Aid Office. Evidence shows barrister Richard Merritt was aware that the cases were not to be tried as a single action. I spoke out to then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding on that matter at the court but Richard Merritt did not. Spedding clearly ignored me. Barrister Richard Merritt's duty as an officer of the courts required that he make the fact known to the court that the cases were not to be tried as a single action. He did not do that and kept silent when the cases proceeded as a single action. I had prepared the cases as if they were to be tried as separate actions with reference to the court order of the 1^st June 1994. In the event they became useless. However, evidence and facts show that that the conduct of then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had most certainly been meant throughout the proceedings, illegal though they were, to further pervert the course of justice. Some of the facts and evidence of this is published on this site. Perversion of the course of justice is what actually happened.. Solicitor Alison Stott remained silent about the fact of the existence of the court order refusing consolidation of the cases. Her duty as a solicitor and therefore as an Officer of the Courts required her to make that information known to the courts.

Then to compound her original acts, solicitor Stott represented Carr in an application for my bankruptcy in the matter of the costs awarded against me by recorder John H Fryer-Spedding. This time I accept that she was acting for Carr and not just assisting her. The bankruptcy was made in favour of Carr against me. Again Stott remained silent on the matter of the illegality of Spedding having tried the cases as a single action as her position required of her. She again kept silent about the existence of the court order made on the 1^st of June 1994 at the Durham County Court refusing consolidation of the cases. That order was significant for the purposes of justice. When my alleged bankruptcy was published on the front page of the Sunderland Echo Newspaper, and the fact that I was barred from remaining as a Town Councillor because of it, my father was so upset that he collapsed and died only hours after its publication.

Then at my appeal in London for my alleged bankruptcy, barrister Richard Merrit again represented Carr. Again, as an officer of the courts, he was required to make known again that the original trial before Spedding which was the cause of my alleged bankruptcy, had been illegal for the reasons that I have given. He again remained silent on the matter and my appeal was refused and further costs were awarded against me for that. Solicitor Stott again kept silent on the matter.

As further facts about Stott, she later claimed that she had never broadcast anything about me or had been in touch with solicitor Nancy Bone about my cases after I had discharged Bone from acting for me. The evidence published on the next pages shows that solicitor Stott was still in contact with Solicitor Bone about my cases up to January of 1997. Solicitor Nancy Bone like solicitor J. P. Graney where evidence shows that he had sworn perjury in a statutory declaration used in my defence in action NE401650 and for use in an application at HM Land Registry, were both struck from the register of solicitors for misconduct in other cases.

Carr is employed as a National Insurance Inspector and is known to visit solicitors offices. Had she I wonder visited solicitor Alison Stott at her office in the course of her work? What was the reason for solicitor Stott entering into such a strange arrangement to become Carr's assistant and then keep that information from the courts until her declaration that she had only been Carr's assistant up until January of 1996? There are of course many other questions that require answers in this matter, but these are only a very small part of them.

The statements that I have made above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Maurice Kellett.