Below are extracts from a letter sent to me by solicitor Alison Stott.  Stott moved from Reform Place, to Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham City . I am told that she sold her business in 1998. On January 17 1996 Stott declared to the Newcastle County Court,  that she was not acting for Carr but had only been assisting her. Former recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding, replied to Stott, "you are either acting for Miss Carr or you are not?". Stott replied, "Well I am now sir." Barrister Michelle Temple and others were in attendance when Stott made that declaration. Two  affidavits were sworn giving a full account of  Stott's declaration. Note that the date of solicitor Stott's letter is 6 February 1995. During the one and a half years leading up to January 17 1996 Stott had accepted work from the courts which had included the preparation of the judges bundle ready for trial. As Carr's assistant, not her advocate, that was illegal. She then secretly passed it on for Carr to carry out. Carr then excluded important documentation from it. Part of it included her application and subsequent refusal by the District Judge Scott-Phillips for consolidation of the three actions between Carr and I under her case NE401650. Recorder John H Fryer Spedding falsely alleged that the three actions had been consolidated into Carr's action and tried them as if they had been consolidated.

Solicitor Stott was also involved  with Carr and District Judge Cuthbertson in my unlawful imprisonment in 1996 and subsequent stroke which followed it. The work she had undertaken which resulted in an injunction being granted against me was in the circumstances also illegal. She was, as she later agreed to the Newcastle County Court presided over by recorder John H Fryer-Spedding only Carr's assistant at that time.

In the first paragraph Stott accepts that the walls between the two properties No. 16 and 16A are party walls. That was a very material. It meant that Shirley Carr, a National Insurance Inspector, was liable, vicarious or otherwise, for  the damage that took place to the party walls on the weekend of November 13 and 14 1993 when she refused to name those re-roofing her property who had caused the damage. Under these circumstances Carr had a case to answer. Recorder John H. Fryer Spedding again did not tell the truth regarding the fact that tall walls and fences between No.s 16 and 16A were party walls and fences. Why did Spedding ignore the letter copied below? Why did he make rulings on the walls between Carr's property and ours when solicitor Stott had conceded that fact early on in proceedings? There is of course the additional problem. Solicitor Stott declared in January of 1996 that up to that time she had not been acting for Carr but had only been assisting her. The latter was yet another point clearly ignored by John H Fryer-Spedding resulting in yet more facts resulting in the perversion of the course of justice.

Solicitor Stott goes on to say that as far as she can see it was a mistake when my father sold No 16 to the Green's " for him in not conveying the alleyway land which was in his ownership at the time. " My fathers affidavits made it clear that there was never any intention to sell the alleyway land. Nonetheless, solicitor Stott agrees in her letter copied below that my father held title to the alleyway land. By her agreement copied below, Carr had no case by her falsely alleging that she held title to the alleyway land subject of case NE401650. But then take a look at what solicitor Alison Stott then goes on to write in her letter copied below. "We believe that the passageway....was not in your parents ownership in any event, as it was not included in the conveyance of land to your parents in 1949 when they bought from Mr Sharp."  This is simply astonishing! Do I need to say what I, and those of sound mind would think upon reading this letter? Solicitor Stott goes on to say, " Your parents occupied the land between 1963 until 1982 when they sold it to Mrs and Mrs Green". The law says that all conveyances of land and property must be by deed. Solicitor Stott was aware that there had been no such deed?

Earlier, as can be seen, criminal solicitor Stott says that "it was a mistake by the conveyancer when my father sold to Mr and Mrs Green in not conveying that part of the land in his ownership at the time."!!!! In fact my father and others agreed in affidavits that both he and I had been occupying the alleyway land from as far back as the 1950's. After 12 years of continued and undisturbed possession of land any person in such occupation of land then acquires title to it. Solicitor Alison Stott had thus conceded these major issues. In the circumstances, Shirley Carr had no case.

Of further material fact, Stott mentions that Carr would be supporting her application to the Durham District Land Registry for alleged, "adverse"  possession of the alleyway land with the Statutory Declarations from Robert William Green, Frederick Seadon, and Paul Graney". There was no way that Carr could have registered any title at HM Land Registry. There was simply no way that she could could claim 12 years of adverse possession. Not even if she added to it any alleged adverse possession by the Green's. Green's never made any such allegation anyway. They did not even try to convey to Carr any alleged interest in the alleyway land. The law states that all conveyances of land and property must be by deed. Solicitor Stott does not appear to be aware of that, or does she? Of further very important relevance, only the Statutory Declaration sworn Paul Graney was material. John Paul Graney, Then a solicitor of Newbottle Street, Houghton-le-Spring, Tyne-Wear, swore perjury in his statutory declaration. A copy of it is included in the pages within this site. Evidence to verify this was sent to solicitor Alison Stott. Her duty as a solicitor, and as a such, also an Officer of the Court required that she report that perjury to the relevant authorities including the Law Society. She obviously did not do that and simply kept quiet about the matter.

Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding protected solicitor John Paul Graney as well. The evidence to show Graney's perjury is also included on this site, was also included in the evidence put before recorder John H Fryer-Spedding along with Graney's affidavit which he swore upon being confronted with the evidence of his perjury. Of further material importance is when did solicitor Stott and Carr first come into possession of these Statutory Declarations? I cannot say more than this for now, but if police do their paid public duty and follow up this matter, I can assure them they will find further evidence of Carr's acts which amount to crime. Mr and Mrs Green should also be interviewed by police on this matter where I can also assure them they will learn even more about the acts carried out against me by Shirley Carr and solicitor Alison Stott. Police obviously dont want to do this because both Carr, Stott and others are being protected by them. I am aware of substantial membership of Freemasonry within the police and the judiciary and my only conclusion is this is the reason for the present situation. They would seem to have required Shirley Carr for use as a weapon against me. Mason Chief Constables are known to carry out similar acts against all those they regard as being anti-mason. In these circumstances they are known always to protect Masonic criminals and pursue those who oppose Freemasonry.

Referring to the final paragraph of solicitor Stott's letter,  there was evidence by way of statutory declarations and affidavits that I and my late father had used the alleyway land well in excess of the time required by law to acquire title to it. My father had also sworn an affidavit in which he said that upon his death he wanted me to be sole owner of the alleyway. Former recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding had those placed before as well, but clearly having set his heart on acts which perverted the course of justice, would he really have wanted to take into consideration any evidence that would have assisted me? It is shown by facts, that when recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had little choice but to consider such evidence, he found his way around it by a series of acts that were shown to be absolute injustice. Solicitor Stott also says that there was no evidence that my father passed on rights relative to the alleyway land to me. In fact by his affidavit swearing that we had jointly used the alleyway land, there was no need for my father to pass on his rights over it to me. However, he did make the situation clear in his affidavit, but District Judge Cuthbertson, sitting at the Durham County Court ignored my late fathers affidavits and struck out my fathers action to go back into possession of our land by claiming that it was an abuse of court time. Recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had ruled that my father was the one most likely to have title to the alleyway land. That was despite his acts which included many contradictions to law. The only abuse that I can see is that of District Judge Couthbertson having ruled unlawfully over the judgement of the higher Court of John H Fryer-Spedding. How many I wonder, have suffered this way at the hands of British justice? District Judge Cuthbertson has not paid over my bill to him of one hundred thousand pounds which I had claimed from him for the injustice that I suffered at his hands. Maybe the man heading the Masonic Judicial and legal Mafia, who facts suggest is Lord Chancellor Irvine, might decide to pay Cuthbertson's Bill? 

Below is only more of the evidence to show the fraud, and conspiracy to defraud that Shirley Carr and solicitor Stott have  used against me. I can show by evidence now that their acts amounting to serious crime are being protected by high authority. I have now also found the link between former recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding and at least one of his acts linking a firm of solicitors. In time I will publish the evidence to show this as well.



Go to crime pages index.

Go to general index.

Go to home page.