Miss Shirley Carr,                                           16A The Lyons,

16 The Lyons,                                                   Hetton-le-Hole,

Hetton-le-Hole,                                                   Tyne-Wear DH5 OHT.

Tyne-Wear DH5OHT.

Date March 16 1999

Dear Miss Carr

Attached hereto is a Bill of Costs which I claim from you for your part in the use of fraud, deception, and perjury in cases DH400950. DH400898 and NE401650. The former Bill of Costs sent to you, of which has been ignored by you is hereby withdrawn. I would advise you that the amount I claim from you will only increase the longer you fail to pay it. Your part in the use of fraud, deception, and perjury in the above numbered cases is fully backed up by evidence of which has already been submitted to you and by admissions that you have since made to my wife and I which is also supported by evidence.

Yours sincerely

Mr. Maurice Kellett

-----------------------------------

To Miss Shirley Carr of 16 The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne and Wear DH5OHT.

Bill of Costs served on you this day of March 17 1999 by Maurice Kellett of 16A The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne-Wear DH5OHT.

DETAILS OF CLAIM

FRAUD AND DECEPTION BY WHICH I CLAIM COSTS FROM YOU.

Up until January 1996 you had attended The Durham County Court with solicitor Alison Stott, presently of Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham City for the purpose of hearings relative to cases DH400950 and DH400898 where I was the Plaintiff and for case NE401650 where you were the Plaintiff. On these various court appearances of which you attended with Alison Stott, she was your spokesperson and conducted matters on your behalf during those various proceedings.

ON JANUARY 17 1996 ALISON STOTT FORMALLY DECLARED BEFORE THE NEWCASTLE COUNTY COURT THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN ACTING FOR YOU BUT HAD ONLY BEEN ASSISTING YOU. SHE WENT ON TO SAY SHE WAS ONLY ASSISTING YOU BECAUSE "YOU HAD A GOOD GRASP OF THE SITUATION".

In attendance at that hearing before The Newcastle County Court on 17th January 1996 where Alison Stott made the above declaration were: You and I and my wife Joyce Kellett, former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding, and Michelle Temple acting Counsel for me. The above declaration made by Alison Stott on 17 January 1996 is fully supported by affidavits of which have been supplied to you.

Before January 17 1996 Alison Stott had been given the work by District Judge Scott-Phillips of preparing the Judges Bundle ready for trial. Without the knowledge of either the Court or myself, Alison Stott later agreed by letter that she had then passed on that work for you to carry out. You then prepared the Judges Bundle. After the trial before John H. Fryer-Spedding in October of 1996 you agreed that you had deliberately left out documentation from the Judges Bundle which you said you did not consider as being important. Part of that documentation which you excluded was your application to The Durham County Court in 1994 for consolidation of the three above numbered cases. On June 1st 1994 District Judge Scott-Phillips Ordered that the cases would not be consolidated into your action under case number NE401650. You did not appeal that Order and it stood at the time the three cases went for trial before John H. Fryer-Spedding in October of 1996. He wrongly tried the three cases as a consolidated action where I was then referred to as Defendant in all three actions. I had prepared both my defence and prosecution on the fact that the Court had ordered the cases to be tried separately one after another by virtue of the June 1st 1994 Court Order.

On October 17 1995 Alison Stott also attended with you at The Durham County Court in the matter of your application for an injunction against me. She again was given work this time by District Judge Cuthbertson. By virtue of the herein detailed declaration which Alison Stott made to The Newcastle County Court on 17th January 1996 and by your failing to inform the Court on that day of 17 October 1995 that Alison Stott was not "acting" for you but was only "assisting" you, that was a furtherance of the fraud and deception which you are shown by evidence to have used throughout the conduct of the cases. As a direct result of the fraud and deception which you used on October 17 1995 detailed here, I was imprisoned at Durham on July 6 1996 where I subsequently suffered a stroke. In your attempts to keep me imprisoned you had Alison Stott send a fax letter to the London Court of Appeal falsely stating that I was not of good character and had been bound over to keep the peace.

By your part in the acts of fraud and deception used in the cases mentioned herein you have caused the following damages to me which are hereby detailed:

1. Considerable and sustained pain, suffering, anxiety, personal stress, depression and a rapid   deterioration in my health conditions.

2. Defamation of my character assisted by means of the use of your fraud and deception.

3. My considerable financial costs and time in trying to defend in a situation which you gained by the use of your fraud and deception.

4.Your use of fraud and deception were forefront in the destruction of my thirty year marriage which caused suffering, anxiety, personal stress, depression and a deterioration in health to my wife Joyce Kellett with all of the consequences thereby arising from this which are instrumental in further damage, stress, depression, anxiety, pain, and suffering to me.

5. The unlawful acquisition of land of which I and my father have lawful title.

6. You have carried out destruction on the above land to property belonging to me.

7. You have caused further damage to the property 16A The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole in  which I  reside by taking measures to ensure that drainage from the rear of your          property continues  to flow onto 16A The Lyons where I am being made responsible  for its dispersal thereby  causing me further pain, suffering, anxiety, stress and   depression and further deterioration  of my health.

8. You are preventing my lawful access to the rear of No. 16A The Lyons by way of the rear garden of your property. My lawful right to use that route is upheld by virtue of   Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 and by supporting evidence

9.You are preventing my use of the driveway at the front of your property which is also protected  by virtue of Section 62 of The Law of Property Act and by                 supporting evidence

10. You have compounded your original fraud and deception by commencing and           publishing bankruptcy proceedings against me in respect of the alleged costs of the civil litigation between us in which you are shown to have used such fraud and deception. There can be no question of bankruptcy when the judgement which you   obtained against me was obtained by your fraud and deception. You have caused me further  stress, anxiety, depression, pain, suffering, and further deterioration of my health as a  direct result of your unlawful acts of fraud and deception. There is a ruling made in  1956 by the late Rt. Hon.Lord Denning former Master of the Rolls of which I recite  here, "No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgement of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by means of fraud. Fraud unravels everything". By virtue of this ruling, and by virtue that evidence is shown that you did use fraud and deception to gain an advantage, the Order made by the former Recorder  John H. Fryer-Spedding must for the sake of justice and in the Public Interest, be  declared as void and any costs awarded by him in respect of that civil litigation must in  these circumstances also be declared as void.

BY YOUR ACTS OF WHICH I DETAIL ABOVE I HEREBY CLAIM FROM YOU

COSTS AND DAMAGES IN THE SUM OF £250,000 TO BE PAID FORTHWITH.

Signed this day of 16 March 1999

 By me

Maurice Kellett.

(Served on Miss Carr 16 March 1999)

----------------------------------------

Definition of fraud as written in the Oxford English Dictionary: 1. criminal deception, the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage. 2. a dishonest artifice or trick. 3.  a person or thing not fulfilling what is claimed or expected of it.

A litigant is bound by rules of the British Courts to either act for themselves (litigant in person) or have a solicitor represent them (acting solicitor). An assistant to a litigant in person is not allowed to handle the conduct of the case which up until 17th January 1996 solicitor Alison Stott had been doing. Her declaration which she made to the Newcastle County Court on 17th January 1996 confirmed that up until that time she had only been assisting  Miss Carr. The court clearly had breached the rules by allowing Alison Stott to carry out work (which she secretly passed on to Carr) while she was only acting only as an assistant (often termed a McKenzie friend). The fact that the court had granted Alison Stott, Carr's McKenzie friend, to prepare the "Judges bundle" and she then secretly passed on work for Carr to carry was without any doubt an act of fraud. Then having deliberately excluded documentation from it, which Carr agrees that she did, that was extremely relevant to proceedings was without doubt a further act of fraud. Carr was aware that former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding had tried the cases as a consolidated action. His approved transcript of judgement commenced with the words " In these consolidated actions". Carr had a copy of it along with Alison Stott.  Still both Carr and Stott failed to notify the courts of the fact that on June 1st 1994 District Judge Scott-Phillips had ordered that the three cases could not be tried as a consolidated action. Carr had deliberately excluded the 1st June 1994 Court Order refusing consolidation of the cases. Carr had made the application for consolidation of the cases around May 1994. I had prepared my cases and defence on the understanding that each case was to be tried separately as per the 1st June 1994 Court Order. It left me in serious difficulty when my preparation of that work  was then of little use when the cases were tried as a consolidated action.

Proceedings in the above matter alone were most certainly unlawful without the other gross misconduct described with supporting evidence in the two very large affidavits which I swore on 13th August and 4th November 1997. The courts have only two options open to them. The first is that they must either deem that the contents of my affidavits to be untrue and take steps to put me before the courts for perjury, for which they are duty bound to do where perjury is being used. The second option is that they must deem the contents of  my affidavits to be true and take immediate steps to remedy the gross injustice that has taken place. As it is shown and detailed in other pages here, the above described acts were not the sum total of the corruption that has been used against  me over these past five years.