This woman is party to fraud along with conspiracy to defaud in partnership with Shirley Carr.They admitted their part in fraud on January, 19 1996 before the criminal and former recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding. Stott, Carr and Spedding are being protected by high authority who include the Law Society, Police, and Judiciary. These people should have been subject of prosecution by now (Jan. 3, 2000) but the Masonic Mafia who control our police and judiciary need the two of them as a weapon against me. They are like rats coming out of their holes in demonstrating this fact.

Alison Stott Solicitor,                          16A The Lyons,

Aykley Vale Chambers,                         Hetton le Hole,

Durham Road,                                         Tyne-Wear,

Aykley Heads,                                             DH5 OHT.


DH1 5NE.                                                Your Ref: AMS/JF/C123.9

                                                                            Our Ref: MK/LS/016

August 3 1997

Dear Ms. Stott,

I understand that The Law Society have intervened in matters relative to Nancy Bone Solicitors and that her license to continue in business has now been revoked.

I have contacted members of The Law Society who confirm that you have taken over the business that was carried out by Nancy Bone's Gilesgate Office.

I also understand that you now hold the files over which Nancy Bone had held a lien in respect of my unfortunate dealings with her. Those members of the Law Society with whom I have spoken agree that a conflict of interests has now taken place, as you presently hold files which are of relevance in the cases in which you act for Miss Shirley Carr who is the Defendant in cases DH400950, DH400898 where, as you are fully aware, I am the Plaintiff. In these circumstances I request the immediate return to me of those files that you now hold.

I understand also that you have been forwarded with a duplicate copy of an order made by LJ. Auld and Pil dated July 29 1997. I would inform you that this order is contrary to the reply that I received from Lord Woolf MR. and the Lord Chief Justice. The reply from their Lords states that I can seek leave to Petition The House of Lords.

I have sent an urgent letter to the Court of Appeal requesting an explanation as to why this recent order conflicts with the contents of the reply received from Lord Woolf MR. and the Lord Chief Justice.

I also await verification from The Court of Appeal that documentation that I sent to the Registrar's office has been forwarded on to Lord Woolf MR. and The Lord Chief Justice, which had been requested by me.

The evidence which I recently sent to The Court of Appeal, and I might add only a small token of such evidence, clearly shows that either the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding was either a very confused man during the trials in October of last year, or possibly there is other reason for his unjust actions and statements that he made, and which are contained in his authorised transcript of judgement.

Though you have failed to reply to my letter to you of June 28 you are in any event aware that contrary to the former Recorder's claim that the cases had been consolidated, in fact they had not been consolidated. You are also aware contrary to the statement contained in the former Recorder's judgement, there was no agreed bundle prior to the trials. Your own actions relative to the court delegating you the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial, which you then passed on to Miss Carr, are called into question, more especially now that it has been confirmed by you before the former Recorder, and Counsel Michelle Temple that at that time you were not acting for Miss Carr but had only been assisting her. You will recall that the fact that you had passed on that work to Miss Carr, who was, as I again remind you, was Defendant in action DH400950, and DH400898, Plaintiff in action NE401650, and applicant in application DH600898.

The former Recorder's judgement states that I was the Defendant in all of those actions which of course is only one of a large number of statements that he made which, I am sure you will agree was untrue.

Your action in the matter of the granting of an injunction on October 17 1995 before District Judge Cuthbertson at the Durham County Court is also called into question. You were then delegated the work of drafting the wording of a joint undertaking that had been agreed in general principle between Miss Carr and I. Though the circumstances of that hearing , which as you are aware were contained in the affidavits of my wife and I, was most certainly improper, and I consider it to have been unlawful, you still fail to give reply to explain your actions in that matter.

On October 17th 1995 you attended The Durham County Court with Miss Carr in the matter of an application for injunction. You were delegated the work of drafting the wording of joint undertakings and were to return back to the Court when you had carried out that work. You will recall that District Judge Cuthbertson's first remark to you was, "you don't expect me to grant that today do you?", you will also recall the judge's remarks which were that he had little time that afternoon.

After my wife and I had left the courthouse on the afternoon of October 17th 1995 believing no other than proceedings that day had been adjourned, which in fact they had been, you then returned back to District Judge Cuthbertson who then granted the injunction in full which had been applied for by Miss Carr. That injunction was to prevent me from taking further evidence for use in the trials, and there can be little doubt that this was its purpose.

Justice, Ms. Stott, demands that when a hearing is adjourned, the parties should be made aware as to when that hearing is to recommence. Neither yourself or District Judge Cuthbertson made any statement whatsoever that afternoon of October 17th 1995 to indicate when you were to return back to District Judge Cuthbertson.

Now the other factor is that on January 17th 1996 you confirmed to the former Recorder, Counsel Michelle Temple and others that up until that time you had not been "acting" for Miss Carr but had only been assisting her. So on October 17th 1995 you had been delegated work by District Judge Cuthbertson, and I can only presume that he delegated you that work, on his understanding that you were acting as the advocate for Miss Carr, which in the circumstances you later confirmed that you had been Miss Carr's assistant, not "acting" for her. Similar circumstances surrounded you being delegated the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial. As you later confirmed, following my receipt of my bundles which had considerable documentation missing from them, Miss Carr had carried out that work herself. I would give you the benefit of knowing that I raised these issues with Lord Justice Auld and Pil who said that they were not prepared to comment on these facts. Sooner or later, someone will be required to comment on these facts.

That injunction of October 17th 1995, which had far reaching consequences, was most certainly improper, and in the circumstances, cannot be considered as lawful.

On July 5th last year I was sentenced to three months imprisonment for alleged contempt of court when it was said that I was guilty of breaching that injunction, so obtained, on October 17th 1995. Clearly Ms. Stott, it is mans right to have contempt for things where contempt is justified? . Contempt is fully justified, given the measures that Miss Carr had taken in her attempts to have me breach that order made by District Judge Cuthbertson of October 17th 1995. I would add that my contempt for the circumstances in the way District Judge Cuthbertson granted that injunction have been made very clear to him.

You are aware that when I was imprisoned at Durham on Friday July 5th 1996, in protest at that injustice, I refused food, drink, and essential medication which includes chemotherapy. I was found unconscious in a cell sometime in the early hours of the following Monday morning. When I became conscious again, I found myself chained to a bed at Dryburn Hospital with a drip feed inserted into my wrist, I was guarded by two prison officers. It was evident later that I had received several injections while I was unconscious.

The following day, an appeal was to be heard in the London Court of Appeal . You then sent a fax letter to The London Court of Appeal, of which I have a copy, which stated that from your clients knowledge I was not of previous good character and had been bound over to keep the peace. This was a further example of the many lies stated and sometimes sworn by Miss Carr in not only her attempts to evade justice, but in her attempts to defame me. I am not of previous bad character, and have never been bound over by any court in my life.

I wonder Ms Stott, had Miss Carr made you aware that she was to become a beneficiary in draft proposals under The City of Sunderland Unitary Development Plan for proposed housing on 12 acres of her land ? By October 17 1995 there is little doubt that she was aware that I had serious reservations under those proposals which I had submitted to my fellow Hetton Town Councillors. One of those Councillors, a Councillor James Blackburn, a member of the Freemasons, owns land adjoining Miss Carr's, and his land too was subject to housing proposals in the Draft Plan, and his actions, along with the actions of his fellow Councillor family were subject to my complaints to Northumbria Police following incidents in Hetton Council Chambers. I was to appear before the Government Inspector relative to the draft proposals on housing proposals at Easington Lane, and the concerns that I raised were subject of a letter that all Hetton Town Councillors received. A conclusion that I can safely draw, is that as it was fairly common knowledge that I was to make representations before the Government Inspector against some of the housing proposals at Easington lane, such representations covered the land owned both by Miss Carr and indeed that owned by Councillor James Blackburn, this could have been further motivation for Miss Carr to apply for the injunction so late in the litigation proceedings, and could have been further reason for her action of additional lies that you sent to The London Court of Appeal in Miss Carr's attempt to keep me imprisoned?

Previous to this current litigation, I had only been in one court before some 11 years ago and that appearance, before Houghton le Spring Magistrates Court, after I had been assaulted and struck by a car, showed that those proceedings were illegal and that one of the two magistrates involved, was a social acquaintance of my assailant. He also frequented Hetton Masonic Hall, where my assailant then supplied fruit and vegetables for use in the Masonic functions held there.

Though that man had remained on the bench at Houghton le Spring that day, he later said that he had stood down. The remaining magistrate was required by law to be a Stipendairy Magistrate, a police officer confirmed that the remaining magistrate was in fact not a Stipendairy Magistrate. Subsequent facts have shown that the remaining magistrate had no such qualification of "Stipendairy Magistrate. To cut a long, and well documented story short Ms. Stott , that matter was subject of a letter to Margaret Thatcher, then Prime minister, who passed on my letter to The Lord Chancellors Department. There was then what I can only describe as a cover up of those illegal proceedings by a Mr. J.J. Death of The Lord Chancellors Department. Though my enquiries into Freemasonry had began earlier, this was further reason for me to continue to investigate the power of Freemasonry within the system of authority. I now know that this power is vast. I am resolved that there will be no cover up of what has taken place over these past three and a half years

My understanding of the rules under which you, as a solicitor ,are required to abide, is honesty. Without honesty, of course there is little chance of justice. It had been shown to former Recorder Fryer Spedding that Miss Carr had sworn statements that were untrue, my understanding is that to swear such untrue statements is an act of perjury. The former Recorder not only allowed that perjury, he compounded it by warning me not to highlight the fact in the early stages of my cross examination of Miss Carr, when she had already commenced to make statements that were contrary to statements that she had made earlier. The former Recorders statement to me was to the effect I would gain nothing by doing that. His statement, which as you will know was made in recorded proceedings, is contrary to the accepted rights of cross examination, and is grossly contrary to the accepted principles of justice. In a number of things, the former Recorder made statements which were contrary to the truth which had clearly been put before him in documents

In October 1996, Miss Carr made a further application for my imprisonment alleging that I had breached the injunction order so obtained from District Judge Cuthbertson on October 17th 1995. That application was included in the proceedings before former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding. I had questioned the lawful validity of that injunction order that was granted by District Judge Cuthbertson, and the former Recorder advised that that application should not be acted upon at that time. But as you are aware, in the alternative, he ordered that Miss Carr be allowed a further twenty eight days from that time in which to apply for a further application for my imprisonment. He also said that he thought that if a further application for my imprisonment was to be made by Miss Carr then it should be reserved to be heard before him. I am informed by a Clerk of the Newcastle County Court Court, Mr. Abley, that Mr. Fryer Spedding went into retirement approximately two weeks after those trials. Around that time I had reported to Lord Mackay some of the actions of Mr. Fryer Spedding which I considered were improper, whether this had any bearing on Mr. Fryer Spedding's apparent sudden decision to retire I am unable to say, but there is, given the circumstances, little doubt that it was a sudden decision. In a recent argument with Miss Carr she stated that the former Recorder has not retired, I wonder, can you suggest where Miss Carr may have came by this information?

There are no circumstances where I will have injustice rammed down my throat, be it from any person, and regardless of whatever position of power such injustice may stem . At the very least Ms. Stott, this litigation has helped to highlight the fact that in our system of justice there would appear to many very confused or corrupt people. I would also add that failing justice by the British system of so called justice, I will be making an application for the matters to be placed before the European Court. Whatever happens, I will defend by any means open to me, any attempt to enforce injustice, you have my absolute assurance of this.

To return to the rules under which you, as a solicitor are bound, I presently require your answer to the following:

1) that you now confirm or deny that there had been no consolidation order of the four cases that went before the former Recorder. If you claim there had been consolidation of the four cases, then I require that you detail to me the place, time, court, and judge who granted any such alleged consolidation order. The former Recorder alleges the cases had been consolidated into one action, I have stated that his statement was untrue.

2) that you confirm or deny that there had been no agreed bundle prior to those trails. I have stated there was no agreed bundle before the trials. The former Recorder claimed there had been an agreed bundle, which was one of the number of untrue statements that he made, and which is contained in his transcript of judgment.

3) that you are aware or are unaware of statements made by the former Recorder which are contrary to the indisputable facts contained in documentation and evidence that were placed before him. If you require a list of some of these, which are readily already proved ,I will be happy to supply you with the evidence which I have recently sent to the London Court of Appeal requesting that it be placed before Lord Woolf MR. and the Lord Chief Justice.

I would add at this time Ms. Stott, that I will regard any failure by you to answer the above questions, as an extension to the deception that has been practiced by Miss Carr throughout the litigation. It is your duty as a solicitor not to err from , or attempt to evade the truth.

Finally, can you confirm that you have not looked at, or conveyed to any other person information or material in those files which you are now in receipt, following your taking over the business of Nancy Bone's Gilesgate ofiice? A clear conflict of interests arises in any event whether or not you have examined those files. I gather staff formerly employed by Nancy Bone are now employed by you. Those former members of Nancy Bone's staff whom you now employ, are also governed by the those same rules governing conflicting interests. You will agree, that those files should now be returned back to me, at the earliest possible convenience, or in the alternative, should be immediately offered back to Nancy Bone herself.

Yours sincerely

Mr. M. Kellett


Any E-mail to:

Back to opening page

Back to page list

Go to contact links