This is the affidavit of my wife which describes the circumstances where Carr and Solicitor Alison Stott confirmed their part in conspiracy, and conspiracy to defraud. Northumbria Police are in receipt of this evidence but as is the case with most mason Chief Constables such as Mr Strachan,  in these circumstances, they will prosecute the victims not the criminals.

January 3, 2000.


Between                        MAURICE KELLETT                           Plaintiff

and                                 SHIRLEY CARR                                  Defendant


I,  JOYCE KELLETT, of 16a The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne & Wear,

MAKE OATH and say as follows:

1. I was in attendance at a directions hearing on the morning of Wednesday January 17 1996 before His Worship Mr Fryer - Spedding which was held at The Newcastle County Court.

2. Also in attendance at the aforesaid directions hearing in addition to myself and His Worship Mr Fryer - Spedding, were the following persons, my husband Maurice Kellett, Michelle Temple Q.C., Alison Stott Solicitor, and Shirley Carr.

3. During proceedings at the aforesaid directions hearing, and in the presence of the aforesaid persons, Alison Stott Solicitor made the following statement:-

"I have not been acting for Miss Carr, I have only been assisting her, as she seems to have a good grasp of the situation".

4. His Worship Mr Fryer Spedding's very sharp reply was:-" You are either acting for Miss Carr or you are not?"

5. Alison Stott then replied to His Worship Mr Fryer-Spedding:-"Well I am now sir".

6. When the aforesaid directions hearing of January 17 1996 was concluded, Michelle Temple Q.C. expressed her disbelief to me, and also to my husband, at the statement made by Alison Stott which is contained herein in paragraph 3.

7. I, along with my husband Maurice Kellett, attended the Durham County Courthouse on Tuesday October 17 1995, where a hearing was to take place in respect of an application for an injunction against my husband Maurice Kellett, that had been made by Shirley Carr. Shirley Carr has been the Defendant in case number DH400950 since my husband commenced action against her on March 30th 1994, and in her application for injunction heard before His Honour Judge Cuthbertson on October 17th 1995, Shirley Carr was stated to be the Plaintiff in the aforesaid action under case number DH400950. My husband then became both Plaintiff and Defendant under his action in The Durham County Court in case number DH400950.

8. The aforesaid hearing of October 17 1995 was listed to be heard before His Honour Judge Jones, but it took place before His Honour Judge Cuthbertson.

9. In attendance at the aforesaid injunction application hearing of October 17th 1995, were His Honour Judge Cuthbertson, myself, my husband Maurice Kellett, Shirley Carr, and Alison Stott.

10. At no time during the aforesaid hearing did Alison Stott inform the aforesaid Honourable Judge that she was not acting for Shirley Carr.

11. At no time during the aforesaid hearing did Shirley Carr inform the aforesaid Honourable Judge that Alison Stott was not acting for her at that time.

12. At the commencement of the aforesaid hearing of October 17 1996, of the application for injunction made by Shirley Carr, His Honour Judge Cuthbertson directed the following question to Alison Stott:-

"You don't expect me to grant this today do you?".

13. The reply from Alison Stott to the aforementioned Judge's statement was:- "Yes I do".

14. The application for the aforesaid injunction against my husband Maurice Kellett contained the case number DH400950 where Maurice Kellett is given as the Defendant in this action, and Shirley Carr as the Plaintiff.

15. In the application for the aforesaid injunction, Shirley Carr was now substituted as Plaintiff in my husband's action under case number DH400950.

16. My husband Maurice Kellett protested to His Honour Judge Cuthbertson during the aforesaid hearing, that he did not consider it as correct procedure where he was then to be placed in the position of being listed as both Plaintiff and Defendant in his action under case number DH400950. His Honour Judge Cuthbertson decided that it had no relevance that my husband Maurice Kellett was to become both Plaintiff and Defendant in his action under case number DH400950.

18. His Honour Judge Cuthbertson had made remarks that implied that he had very limited time on that afternoon of October 17 1995. My husband Maurice Kellett and I were given no reason other than to believe that His Honour Judge Cuthbertson could not grant the injunction that had been applied for by Shirley Carr, because of his very apparent lack of time on that afternoon of October 17th 1995.

19. All proceedings at the aforesaid hearing of October 17 1995, were conducted between His Honour Judge Cuthbertson, Maurice Kellett, and Alison Stott.

20. It was jointly agreed in principle that the injunction application be withdrawn, and that in its place there should be joint undertakings agreed by Maurice Kellett and Shirley Carr.

21. His Honour Judge Cuthbertson said that Alison Stott was to draft the wording of the undertakings and then she could return back to him, Alison Stott replied to the Judge:- "I thank you sir".

22. My husband Maurice Kellett expressed his concern to His Honour Judge Cuthbertson that the wording of the undertaking was likely to be heavily biased in favour of Shirley Carr if Alison Stott was carry out the aforesaid work.

23. His Honour Judge Cuthbertson replied to my husband that he would be given the opportunity to express any concerns that he might have about such wording, when the drafting of it was completed and it had been returned to him.

24. At no time whatsoever during the aforesaid hearing of October 17 1995 did His Honour Judge Cuthbertson, Alison Stott, or Shirley Carr, indicate to myself or my husband Maurice Kellett of when a return back to the Judge was to be made.

25. When I, along with my husband, left the Judge's Chamber, Alison Stott and Shirley Carr went into an interview room in the courthouse, they made no comments to my husband or I whatsoever.

26. The circumstances of the Judges remarks about his limited time during the aforesaid hearing, in addition to my, and my husbands belief that Alison Stott would not be returning back to His Honour Judge Cuthbertson again that very same afternoon, and as we believed the drafting of the wording of the proposed undertaking would take place back at the offices of Alison Stott, my husband and I then left the Courthouse. We had no other reason than to believe that proceedings for that day of October 17 1995 had been concluded.

27. Around three days later than October 17th 1996, My husband received documentation from Alison Stott, which said that as he had not been present when she made a return back to His Honour Judge Cuthbertson on that same afternoon of October 17 1995, His Honour Judge Cuthbertson had granted the injunction upon which application had been made.

28. My husband then sent a letter to The Chief Clerk of the Durham County Court expressing his concern at the documentation received from Alison Stott which said that Shirley Carr had been granted the injunction of which she had applied, and that it had been granted because my husband was not present at the Courthouse.

29. My husband decided to appeal against the granting of the injunction of October 17 1995 on the grounds of the circumstances under which the injunction had been granted. My husband requested me to go to the Durham County Court to obtain a form on which he was to submit his appeal against the granting of the aforesaid injunction. This I did.

30. We had no reason other than to believe that my husband Maurice Kellett had forwarded what he regarded as an Appeal, against His Honour Judge Cuthbertson's decision to grant the aforesaid injunction of October 17th 1995 in full, given on the grounds that it had been granted because my husband was not present in the Durham Courthouse.

31. My husband's appeal against His Honour Judge Cuthbertson's decision to grant the injunction that Shirley Carr had applied, was heard before His Honour Judge Cuthbertson on November 6th 1995 at The Sunderland County Courthouse. Five minutes had been allowed for my husband's appeal to be heard. My husband Maurice Kellett and I, along with Shirley Carr were present at the aforesaid appeal.

32. At the aforesaid appeal, it took less than five minutes for His Honour Judge Cuthbertson to inform my husband that he would not change his decision to grant the aforesaid injunction of October 17th 1995.

33. After my husband's approaches to The Chief Clerk to the Durham County Court by letter, for explanations as to why his appeal had been heard before the same Judge as had granted the injunction of which his appeal was subject, he said that my husband's appeal was not an appeal because the form upon which he had appealed, and which I had obtained from the Courthouse, was not upon the correct form for an appeal. The Chief Clerk of The Durham County Court, Mr Cuthbertson said that my husband had only applied for the removal of the injunction upon the grounds that he gave, and that was his explanation for the matter again being referred back to His Honour Judge Cuthbertson.

34. His Honour Judge Scott-Phillips had delegated the work of paginating the Bundles of documentation ready for trial to Alison Stott. When it was found that the Bundles that were afterwards supplied to my husband had considerable documentation missing from them, and had included documentation that was not paginated, he contacted Alison Stott who, my husband told me, did not immediately inform him that she had not carried out the work that His Honour Judge Scott-Phillips had delegated to her. On my husband's further approach to Alison Stott, she confirmed that Shirley Carr, the Defendant in cases DH400950, DH400898, and Plaintiff in case NE401650, had carried out the aforesaid work herself.

SWORN  by  me


On this             day of  October 1996


Before me


At The Durham County Court,

John Street,


Tyne & Wear.


The above affidavit was duly sworn by my wife Joyce and was submitted in proceedings before the corrupt former Recorder Mr. John Fryer-Spedding.

I was ordered to pay the costs of Alison Stott Solicitor despite the fact that she had agreed to the court that before 17th January 1996 she had only been acting as Carr's assistant, or as the commonly accepted legal term describes her as, McKenzies friend. This is improper. Stott had been delegated the work of preparing what is termed, " the judges bundle" ready for trial. In the circumstances that was highly improper. Unknown to the Court or myself she then passed on that work for Carr to carry out. These facts only came to light when the bundle which I received ready for trial had a considerable amount of known documents missing from it. After the trial, which should have been trials, Carr agreed that she had deliberately excluded documentation from the judges bundle. Part of that documentation had been her application for the three cases to be consolidated into a single action where I was to become the defendent in all three cases. On 1st June 1994 it was ordered in the Durham County Court that the cases could not be consolidated. Recorder John Fryer-Spedding tried the cases as a consolidated action and I became the defendent in all cases. I was in fact the Plaintiff in two out of those three cases. Shortly after the trial, where by means of his lies, concoctions of false stories, and allowance of Carr's perjury, the Recorder ruled against me. I reported some of his vile acts to former Lord Chancellor Mackay.  Approximately two weeks after the trial a Clerk to the Newcastle County Court, Mr. Abley, told me that the Recorder had gone into retirement and the court had difficulty in contacting him.

Carr had  again applied for my imprisonment under the injunction improperly granted by District judge Cuthbertson at The Durham County Court. John Fryer-Spedding would not hear her application when  I had questioned the lawful validity of the way in which Cuthbertson had granted that injunction. Instead he granted Carr a further twenty eight days in which to make another application for my imprisonment. He said that if such application was made it should be reserved to be heard before him. It is evident therefore that his retirement two weeks after the trial was a sudden decision made around the same time as I had reported him to the then Lord Chancellor Mackay.

The bankruptcy proceedings  now commenced by Carr and Stott relate to the £15,800 in alleged court costs where I link the corruption to the Masonic mafia controlled British Judiciary. The Masonic mafia seek to make their opponents bankrupt and by use of the courts and corrupt lawyers they are easily able to do this. It is now known that the Lord Chancellor pre-briefs High Court  appeal judges on cases, which is in total contravention of commonly accepted principles of justice.

Files that I sent to the London Court of Appeal had gone missing for a time. They could not be found in the file room. Perhaps they were already being used by the Lord Chancellor to pre- brief Lords Justices Auld and Pill who subsequently refused me leave to appeal the corrupt Recorder John Fryer-Speddings judgement?

Go to links:

Go to page index

Go to opening page

Any E-mail please to: