Copied below is paragraph 8 of Carr's sworn affidavit of May 12 1994. I have published herein a copy of a letter receiver from the Sunderland Civic Centre confirming that Carr was the applicant for drainage proposals to No 16 The Lyons more than six months before she and a Mr Thomas McCabe were to purchase it. I have shown herein the proof that it was not the Green's who had that work carried out as Carr has sworn, but Carr herself. The drainage work that was carried out by the local authority amounting to a cost of more than two thousand pounds was paid for by Carr. She was therefore responsible for swearing perjury by stating below, " I have not altered or caused any alteration to my property's.....drains, " It seems that Carr was also in fact responsible for alterations to her property's rear yard and guttering. When video film taken of those subjects is converted to photographs, I will show the evidence that she was also responsible for the alteration of those as well.
Note the way criminal Carr applies her evil mind to deception by swearing below on May 12 1994, "Following the Plaintiff's complaints I contacted the Drainage Engineers at Sunderland Civic Centre who advised me that the sewerage and and frontal drainage of my property was connected to the main drainage system in February, 1988."
It is confirmed by the evidence placed before criminal former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding by a letter received from Sunderland Civic Centre dated July 26 1995 that criminal Carr had been responsible for the drainage work on No. 16 The Lyons more than six months before she and a former partner were to purchase it on August 26 1988. Still Carr swears that she found it necessary to go to Sunderland Civic Centre years after that to ask if the frontage of her property had been connected to the main drains. This is only one a a huge number of her attempts at deception. I will detail more as time allows.
She goes on to swear more perjury; " No work was necessary on the rear yard of the property as the yard merely measures 21 foot by 45 inches and has no artificially channelled water entering it or artificially draining from it." The rear yard of her property is some two feet below natural ground level as is No. 16. My property is in the same situation, but was agreed by a survey and criminal Spedding to be at a lower ground level than Carr's property. The measures that criminal Carr had carried out to make sure that my property received the full drainage from the rear of her property are fully filmed and were show to criminal John H. Fryer-Spedding. He ignored that evidence as in fact any criminal judge would when they want to pervert the course of justice. The film still remains as proof of my allegations.
As for the barrel, what local authority drainage experts would agree that a barrel was a satisfactory to drain the rear of any property into? But in any event two surveys of Carr's property found that the barrel did not contain any drainage in it. Carr then used her deception and alleged the barrel had a hole in it. All guttering allegedly meant to drain into that barrel had been sloped away from it in the direction of my property No 16A. Criminal Spedding was shown video film showing that fact, but being a criminal the same as Car, as the saying goes, "birds of a feather flock together".
Carr had agreed that her predecessors in title to her property, the Green's had not made it known that when they were attempting to sell their property it had no drains. Only an idiot would have agreed to buy the property after finding that out as Carr did. Would she really pay out more than two thousand pounds for the Local Authority to carry out drainage work on the front of No. 16 more than six months before she was to purchase it without having a full survey on the properties rear drainage after the Greens had attempted to sell her No 16 without making it known that it had no drains? She and her former partner, Mr McCabe had already been made aware by my wife and I that the rear of No 16 was also without drains. She lied when she said we had not made her aware of that. Nonetheless here is a woman, happily swearing perjury who attempts to say that she was not even aware that the front of No 16 was on the mains public drainage system when she in fact had not only been responsible for that work in February 1982, but had paid the full cost of it. Big liars should have good memories.
Return to index
Go to,pages index
Go to front page