|
|
Below is a further example of the confidence gained by Carr when she found that whatever she said, be it lies or otherwise, and mostly it was lies, the Masonic Mafia controlled Judiciary would turn black into white to protect her. The Masonic controlled Judicial Mafia are a heartless scum prepared to go to any lengths to protect their own and destroy those who expose them. Mason Chief Constable of Northumbria and the Northumbria Police Authority have just confirmed their part in the order of things. (January 3, 2000)
IN THE DURHAM COUNTY COURT
Case No's DH400898, NE401650
Between Maurice Kellett Plaintiff
and Shirley Carr Defendant
I wish to apply for an adjournment of the hearing that has been listed for hearing on Thursday 30 October 1997 at 2pm for the following reasons:
1) During my telephone conversation with a member of Sunderland County Court Staff On Tuesday 21 October 1997 I was told that there was to be a hearing on 30 October relative to the above cases. The staff member told me that the Bailiff was to serve me with notice of that hearing.
The latest application made to the court by Shirley Carr is dated 19 September 1997. That of course was many weeks ago.
I have only just today received the formal notice of the hearing and its subjects in this morning post. Today is 28 October 1997. There is therefore insufficient time to prepare a defence to the application to be heard on 30 October 1997. There has alone been very little time for me to prepare this application for adjournment of the hearing.
2) Health problems brought about by further acts of pestering and harassment of my wife and I by Shirley Carr.
Some of these health problems have been verified by a police doctor and my own doctors. Some of Shirley Carr's acts of harassment and pestering are given below. Some of her acts of pestering and harassment are proved here by her own evidence given in her affidavit of 14 September 1997.
Over the past months the Defendant Shirley Carr has on numerous occasions came to our door and has harassed and pestered my wife and I. She has made demands that she be allowed to carry out work on our property. She has included in her demands that we allow her to decorate our property in colours and finish that will match her property. On one of her many visits she demanded that my wife and I sign a form which she had prepared to say that we will agree to her demands that she be allowed to place guttering upon and overhanging our property.
For months leading up to 27 August 1997 Shirley Carr has continued to enter our property in the full knowledge that we had told her that we did not want her to do that. She had work carried out on a wall which the court had agreed was our property. She had the wall drilled and then had things attached to it. My wife eventually asked the police to attend and they suggested that we take proceedings against her for criminal damage to our property. After the police had called and interviewed Shirley Carr she eventually removed her items from our wall. I enclose a copy of a letter delivered to Shirley Carr regarding that matter. It is dated 20 February 1997.
In her affidavit which accompanies her latest application to the court Shirley Carr has included an alleged tape transcript of what she terms the "Incident on 27th August 1997". On that particular day Shirley Carr had came banging on our door numerous times making demands of my wife that she be allowed to speak to me. I have health conditions that are life threatening, and Shirley Carr has agreed that she is aware of these health problems. My wife eventually asked me to speak to her in an attempt to stop her from pestering and harassing her on our property with demands that she be allowed to speak to me. When Shirley Carr came again banging on our door on 27 August 1997, in an attempt to stop her harassment and pestering, I answered our door.
As an illustration of Shirley Carr's pestering and harassment it is clearly shown by her own evidence that when she came banging on our door on the first occasion she had a tape recorder concealed on her person. It is shown by her Exhibit SC5A/B that she had commenced to record our conversation on our property right from the start using that concealed tape recorder.
The contents of her transcript of the conversation are not agreed. As with past experience with Shirley Carr not only are the contents of the transcript not agreed, but it can be shown that Shirley Carr has edited out another part of our conversation following our eventual awareness that she had a tape recorder concealed on her person and was obviously recording our conversation. She then produced the tape recorder and said that she had not been recording our conversation. Her own evidence has proved that she was indeed recording our conversation with that concealed tape recorder.
She removed the tape from the machine and again told my wife and I that she had not been recording our conversation. When she put the tape back into the machine we saw that she had turned it on to the other side.
Shirley Carr has been using these type of tactics since the outset of litigation between us. In her application for my imprisonment on 5th July 1996 she produced evidence that shows she had tape recorded a conversation that took place between my wife and I in the privacy of our own kitchen. As a result of that we no longer dare to leave our kitchen window open when we are having a conversation.
Further evidence of the true nature of Shirley Carr is shown by Exhibit 5B of her affidavit of 14 September 1997 that accompanies her latest application to the court.
When my wife and I had became aware of the purpose of Shirley Carr in concealing that tape recorder, I said that she did not have my agreement to tape record our conversation (see page 1 of Exhibit SC5B). Then she asked if I agreed to her recording the conversation that was to follow. It is shown and agreed that I then requested Shirley Carr to remove the tape from her machine. Then she replied that "I" was recording that conversation for our benefit? My wife then told Shirley Carr that I was not recording any of that conversation. Shirley Carr replied, as she confirms in Exhibit SC5B that I had just said that I was recording the conversation. I had not made that statement. Her allegation that I had said that I was recording the conversation is not included in her alleged transcript of the recording, but she claimed, " Oh come on. he's just said he is". She claimed that I had made that statement but it is not included in her transcript?
I had said that we had recording equipment in the house. That is verified by Shirley Carr in the alleged tape transcript of Exhibit SC5B page 1. Despite having harassed and pestered my wife and I by banging at our door and making demands of us on numerous occasions during the past few months, here Shirley Carr shows very clearly, and by her own evidence, that she had came to our house with a concealed tape recorder. She clearly shows that it had been her intention, without our knowledge or consent, to record the outcome of any reaction to her pestering and harassment of us.
Shirley Carr confirms in page 1 of Exhibit SC5B in her affidavit of 14 September that she then made the following statement to my wife and I on 27 August 1997 after she had been secretly tape recording our conversation while she was stood at our property's front door:
Miss Carr's statement, "Alright. Well thats alright, you shouldn't, not if you're recording me, because its an invasion of privacy".
She had in fact said that it was an invasion of her privacy if I was recording that conversation while she stood on our garden outside of our front door secretly recording that conversation with a concealed tape recorder on 27 August 1997. But her attitude is clearly shown here. An attitude which has been prevalent throughout the litigation proceedings that she could carry out despicable acts against us such as that on 27 August 1997, but she says that we should not carry out those same acts against her as it would be an "invasion of her privacy" if we had tape recorded that conversation while she was in our property with that concealed tape recorder. It is shown by her own evidence that she was secretly tape recording that conversation of 27 August 1997.
Here, in her latest affidavit of 14 September 1997 she shows that she had been doing precisely that act, on our property, and without our prior knowledge or consent.
Later on the evening of 27 August 1997 Shirley Carr further pestered and harassed my wife and demanded that she be again allowed to speak to me. I was not available. She insisted that she wanted to see me. She returned again later that evening, and banged on our front door. This time I answered our door and Shirley Carr made demands again that she be allowed to carry out work on the frontage of our property. Those later actions of Shirley Carr on the evening of 27 August were fully recorded and will be used as evidence against her. That evening she agreed she had deliberately left out documentation from the bundles when Alison Stott Solicitor had, without the knowledge or consent of the court or myself passed on the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial to Shirley Carr. Shirley Carr was then the Defendant in two out of the three actions.
In her transcript of the tape recording made earlier that day of 27 August 1997, she has omitted her demand that we allow her to plaster a wall within our property. She also demanded that she be allowed to decorate that wall in colours of her own choosing. She had said that the wall would look silly if we decorated that part of the wall in a colour of our choosing. The wall is completely within the curtilage and confines of our property. We have decorated that wall now for close on to twenty years. It is divided from her property by a hedge and fence and it comprises as part of the frontage of our property. It is clear that she has therefore edited out that part of the conversation. That was the action that she took when she had a transcript of a recording made for her use in my imprisonment last year, following her aggravation of our two dogs to make them bark so that she could tape record them.
In These circumstances it is shown very clearly by her acts of considerable harassment and pestering of my wife and I that it had been her intention from the outset, to tape record any reaction to her harassment and pestering of us at our own front door. That was exactly similar to the situation that led up to her application for my committal on 5 July 1996. She had been assisted greatly in that harassment and intimidation by the injunction Order made by District Judge Cuthbertson on 17 October 1996. Following that injunction, which is still considered as having been granted in improper circumstances, my wife and I had been severely harassed, intimidated and antagonised by both Shirley Carr and her present boy friend, Norman Pringle.
She was greatly assisted by that injunction because she could carry out those despicable acts such as that which is clearly shown by Exhibit 5A/B of her affidavit. The injunction did not allow us to react to it. Some of her despicable acts have included leaving one of her property's bedroom windows that is close to our garden fully open, and having a tape recorder set up to record the conversations between my wife and I while we sat in our garden. That situation remained for many weeks leading up to her application for my imprisonment. They, Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle, made fun of the fact that they were allowed to carry out those acts but under the injunction, so obtained, we could not record or react in any way to those acts which they had carried out to intimidate us into breaching the injunction so obtained.
I eventually did react to that harassment and intimidation which had carried on for months, and on a number of occasions I had police attend to curb those actions of Shirley Carr and her boyfriend Norman Pringle. I was then sentenced to three months imprisonment for breaching that injunction so obtained.
By Exhibit SC5A/B Shirley Carr shows that she is still continuing with those actions of harassment and pestering. It is also clearly shown that she still considers by her act shown in Exhibit SC5A/B that she agrees that if I had tape recorded that "incident" at our front door of 27 August 1997 it would have been an invasion of her privacy. She has clearly shown that her purpose of pestering and harassing us while she came to our property was to carry out that same act which she agrees was an invasion of our own privacy.
On 30 September 1997 Shirley Carr alleged to police that I had contacted her employer and that it was therefore an act of harassment. In the litigation proceedings Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle had alleged that her Welfare Officer had made allegations about me. She also alleged that a "log" which I had given in confidence to DSS Fraud Section Officers, which eventually found its way to Shirley Carr from her employer for use in her actions against me, had been fully investigated and had been found to be without foundation. The log had not been fabricated in any way. I have approached Shirley Carr's employer the DSS, in an attempt to have the allegations made by Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle either confirmed or denied by them. The DSS had failed to answer my enquiries to them.
Police arrested me under the 16 June 1997 Protection of Harassment Act. I was detained under arrest by them for approximately three hours. A police doctor examined me at Gillbridge Avenue Police Station, Sunderland and told officers that I was not fit to be detained or questioned as my blood pressure was 250/150. The police doctor expressed concern at my condition, and said that if I did not feel well when I got home I should have my wife contact a doctor immediately. Police said that they wanted me off the premises as soon as possible and an officer took me home. That officer was then shown evidence to support the facts of Shirley Carr's sustained pestering and harassment of my wife and I.
Since my arrest under the harassment allegation made by Shirley Carr I have remained unwell and my doctor has indicated that my problem with hypertension may well now prove to be fatal for me. It has also been indicated that I will not be able to sustain these high blood pressure levels without the increased possibility of a heart attack or further stroke. I understand that I am more at risk because I remain on chemo-therapy and have also had additional problems with my blood clotting levels. While I was in prison last year as a result of gross injustice, I had my first stroke.
I include here a letter from my doctor dated 27 October 1997 to verify my present condition. Past experience shows that it is likely that Shirley Carr remains determined to carry out any act, such as the one clearly shown by her act of 27 August 1997, to exacerbate my condition. She confirms in our conversation of 27 August 1997 that I told her that I am to pursue a libel action against her for statements that she has made regarding my sanity and character. Those statements, among the large number made by her in affidavits were grossly untrue. I believe that it is her intention by her pestering and harassment to attempt to bring about a situation where I can not proceed with the planned libel action. She is also aware that she used a considerable amount of perjury as her means of defence and prosecution in the litigation proceedings. I am totally resolved that Shirley Carr will be brought to account for that perjury. I have made that very clear to her.
Shirley Carr had her present boyfriend , Mr. Norman Pringle, erect a fence at the front of our respective properties. That fence prevents us from exercising our rights under Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The drive at the front of Shirley Carr's property was the joint drive and only front access to both respective properties No's 16 and 16A at the time of our purchase of our property on 2 February 1976. Ordnance maps provide evidence of that fact. Affidavits and Statutory Declarations also provide evidence of that fact. Shirley Carr has fenced that drive from us and says that I have no right to be on that drive. She has agreed that the fence is unsafe but claims that I have been responsible for making it unsafe. Those who have looked at the fence, and have experience in such work, agree that the posts have not been installed properly.
The fencing posts have not been sunk sufficiently into the ground and when it has been windy the fence moves from side to side threatening to break free and blow into our property frontage. To help show this situation it has been fully filmed. My wife and I have continually asked and written to Shirley Carr requesting that she remedy that situation, but she has not done that. Around January of this year, because of high winds, the fence was moving so substantially and was about to break free. I filmed the imminent danger, which is very clearly shown on the film, and then I approached Shirley Carr on the matter. Mr. Norman Pringle was busy attaching a guy rope to part of the fence in an attempt to stop it from breaking free and blowing into our property. He was using a large hammer to drive a stake into the ground on which to attach the guy rope. He raised the hammer in a threatening manner to me and I warned him not to do that. I had with me a video camera and these facts can be shown. They told me that Norman Pringle had intended to place further guy ropes on the fence to help secure it, but added that as I had approached them, and had "no right" to be on "their" drive, they would not fit any further guy ropes to secure the fence.
It is now some ten months since Norman Pringle attached that single guy rope to help in securing the fence. That single guy rope attached to the fence and a stake driven into the ground, still remains in position at the present time. There has still been no work carried out by Shirley Carr to remedy what can be shown by indisputable evidence, to be a dangerous situation, not only for my wife and I, and those who visit our property, but also threatens to damage our property. It has been necessary for us to have a prop fitted against a small tree in our garden which shoulders the fence when it is moving from side to side. Placing a prop against that small tree is the only measure that we can take as of course we are not allowed to prop the fence at our side of it. We are in continual fear that when the fence does eventually break free, and there is little doubt that it eventually will, it will endanger ourselves and others, and also our property. These acts, along with many others committed by Shirley Carr are part of the commonplace hazards we continually face. Included in these acts is the danger of the party wall that was damaged during reroofing of Shirley Carr's property in November of 1993, collapsing through the roof of our kitchen. evidence is available which helps show this danger. Also included in the acts of Shirley Carr is the fact that after more than ten years of having no drains on the rear of her property, which is the way that she purchased it, we are still being made responsible for dispersing the drainage from the rear of her property. The floods that we experience from this are very clearly shown on the video film evidence that was shown to the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding. Amongst these acts, it is now possible to show by evidence that Shirley Carr has also embarked upon a course of character assassination of me. It will be clear that acts such as the ones I have detailed here, which can be backed up by evidence most certainly has added to my health problems. I would suggest that the injustice that the former Recorder handed out to me in October of 1996 has greatly assisted Shirley Carr in that it will be clear to her that the perjury that she has used in the actions, was either overlooked, or sanctioned by the former Recorder. The evidence to support this statement remains fully available and has been distributed to many others.
Because of the injustice practised by some members of the judiciary, and there is clear evidence of that as well, I will add that not all have practised that, we are reluctant at this present time to pursue these matters before the court.
3) It can now be very clearly shown that the cases that were heard before the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding had not been subject of consolidation as he had wrongly alleged at the outset of his judgement. Following an application by Shirley Carr, District Judge Scott-Phillips Ordered on 1 June 1994 that the cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650 could not be consolidated. Within this past week my request for a copy from the court file of that Order made by District Judge Scott Phillips has been laid to one side and I was told that the matter would be subject of discussion at the hearing of October 30 1997. I had required that copy of the Order for the hearing of that date. Following further files that were held by the former Nancy Bone Solicitors now having been returned to me, I now have the copy of the Order of District Judge Scott-Phillips made on 1 June 1994 refusing the application for consolidation of the cases. I therefore no longer require the copy from the court file.
Another material untrue statement, one of a number, made in the judgement of the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding was that On 2 February 1976 when my wife and I purchased our property from my parents, our property had been divided on that date and what then was formerly known as 16 The Lyons then became known as 16A The Lyons. The title deeds to the two respective properties contains a declaration that by 1948 the two respective properties had already been divided and were " two private dwellinghouses with their curtilages". The former Recorder referred to the deeds of the respective properties yet still made the above statement that defied the declaration made in the titles to our properties. Shirley Carr also confirmed in her affidavit which she put before the former Recorder that the properties had been divided before 1947.
It is now shown that the untrue statement made by the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding that the properties had been divided on 2 February 1976 effectively bypassed our rights under Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925. From at least 1947 their had been continued diversity of occupation of both properties. They had not been in single joint occupation as had been implied by the untrue statement of the former Recorder that our property No. 16A The Lyons only became No. 16A The Lyons after 2 February 1976.
His additional act of granting a permanent injunction preventing my entry back onto the land which he ruled Shirley Carr does not have title, is therefore also shown to be unjust. That land had comprised as part of the right of way to the rear of our property for at least the past one hundred years. Those who have occupied our property, which included my parents, had always used the land subject of dispute in case NE401650 and the rear garden of No. 16 The Lyons as the route to access the rear of our property No. 16A The Lyons. There had never been any other suitable route other than through the living room of our home. The pig stys and poultry houses which were built on our land at the rear of our property around the turn of the present century, had most certainly not been stocked and serviced by route of the living room of our property. That would certainly have been clear to the former Recorder.
Because the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding had made a considerable number of untrue statements while he delivered judgement, often in complete and utter defiance of the evidence that he had before him, and this can be clearly shown, that I will not concede that the trials had been fairly conducted. The independence of the Judiciary does not permit them to carry out such acts. His acts fly in the face of British Justice and also to agreements contained in the Maastricht Treaty that was signed by the British Government. The matter of those statements made by the former Recorder will have to be fully and properly addressed.
There is no provision in law that a person who has been subject to judgement made on the basis of lies, can be bound by such judgement. The very basis of justice is a fair trial. Clearly a judge who makes false statements while he delivers judgement, and warns that a litigant will not gain by highlighting the fact that his opponent was swearing contrary statements while under cross examination, has not practised justice.
For more than ten years now Shirley Carr's property has been without a means of rear drainage. The video evidence submitted by me in proceedings before the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding clearly shows the measures that Shirley Carr has taken to ensure that my wife and I are burdened with the problem of that drainage coming from her property on to our own.
Among many of the questionable acts of the former Recorder, he failed to mention the very material fact that both respective properties are built below natural ground level. He agreed there was a "significant" difference in the levels between the properties and that ours is the lower of the two. Still he made that astonishing statement that he could not understand the purpose of anyone wanting to put holes beneath the wall on our property for the benefit of Shirley Carr or myself. He had of course omitted to add that the rear of Shirley Carr's property is without drains, and that Shirley Carr had sworn that it relies on "natural drainage" . The measures that have been taken by Shirley Carr, clearly shown on the video film evidence produced before the former Recorder, the measures that Shirley Carr has taken to assist that "natural drainage" in flowing into and onto our property.
The video film evidence shown to the former Recorder shows those holes, and without question, shows their purpose and who had made them. The video evidence shows that they were made on and from the side of the property owned by Shirley Carr.
We face yet another winter where the likelihood of water coming from Shirley Carr's property on to ours will continue. We face another winter where the intake of water in to our kitchen as a result of damage to the party wall caused during the reroofing of Shirley Carr's property on the weekend of 13 and 14 November 1993. The damaged wall is in danger of collapse through our kitchen roof. These problems caused by the actions not only of Shirley Carr but by those of the former Recorder, have, because of the worry attached to these matters, added to the deterioration in my health condition.
None of those judges have acted when they have looked at the evidence which shows that the solicitor Mr. Paul Graney had agreed that he had sworn false information in a Statutory Declaration which he used in an application to HM land Registry. Though the former Recorder had four copies of that evidence before him, he claimed he had not looked at it? The former Recorder then made statements giving full consideration to that application made to HM Land Registry using that false information.
Rules require that when a Judge is aware of those acts of swearing false information in a Statutory Declaration, that they should then act upon it. It is clear that those judges who have seen that false information sworn by the solicitor Mr. Paul Graney have not acted upon it. It is also clear that those judges who have been shown evidence that Shirley Carr had replied on perjury as her means of defence and prosecution, have also not acted as they are required by rule to act.
These matters are also in the course of preparation and are to be put before the Lord Chancellor.
It may not be in the public interest to show that the actions of judges are called into question. Equally, it is not in our interest to concede such injustice, when it has been clearly practised by those who are privileged with the work of administering justice. The injustice that I, and indeed my wife are suffering, is so clear and blatant. Obviously there are serious concerns arising from this. Injustice to assist in covering injustice can not and will not be accepted under any circumstances.
It is for these reasons, and others not included here, that I have distributed to many others, including members of public broadcasting services, evidence that clearly shows the injustice we have suffered and continue to suffer.
4) Preparation is currently underway for registration of the matters to be heard before the European Court.
Owing to my deteriorated health condition brought about by the pestering and harassment of Shirley Carr, and injustice, there has been a delay in making preparation for registration of the matter to be heard before the European Court. Following my approach to my Member of Parliament Mr. Fraser Kemp, who along with many others has been furnished with evidence to show that the former Recorder had not told the truth when he delivered judgement, he has sent to me documentation to assist with my application to the European Court. He has indicated that I can refer the affairs to the European Court of Human Rights. He has also written that if I have any enquiries regarding this then I should contact my European Member of Parliament, Mr. Allan Donnelly. Though it is anticipated that the registration for the matter to be heard before the European Court will be made within the permitted period, any further deterioration of my health may in such circumstances defeat registration within the permitted period. Clearly that would be an addition to the injustice that we are presently being subjected to.
5) I understand from Court staff that District Judge Cuthbertson has reserved matters concerning these litigation proceedings for himself.
I wrote a letter to the Chief Clerk of the Sunderland County Court dated 22 October 1997, containing our Ref: MK/LS/022. In it I indicated my concern that District Judge Howard had said that it could be "arranged" that District Judge Cuthbertson would not preside further in the matters. This had followed my complaints against the circumstances under which District Judge Cuthbertson granted an injunction on 17 October 1997. Mr. Merritt, who was Counsel representing Shirley Carr described that injunction as having been granted in "unusual circumstances". That injunction, which had been granted in circumstances that were considered as improper. It greatly affected my ability to take further evidence for use in the cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. It was also solely instrumental in my unjust imprisonment on 5 July 1996 and my subsequent stroke. Proceedings relative to Shirley Carr's application for an injunction before the judge had been adjourned on that day of 17 October 1995. Justice alone demanded that my wife and I should have been informed by the judge as to the time that proceedings were to recommence. We left the courthouse believing that those proceedings would recommence on another day. Sometime after my wife and I left the courthouse, Alison Stott, Shirley Carr's "assistant", not her advocate, returned back to District Judge Cuthbertson whereby he then granted in full the injunction of which application had been made by Shirley Carr. Lord Justice Pil and Auld said that they were not prepared to comment on that matter.
As a result of the judges actions on 17 October 1995, I have had strong words with him on occasions that we have met. Though the former Recorder agreed that Shirley Carr has no title to the disputed land, he did say that he was of the opinion that my father William Kellett, was the one most likely to have title to the disputed land under case NE401650. The solicitor who was to eventually "act for Shirley Carr after January 1996 agreed by letter that my father was likely to have gained title to the disputed land.
Despite this, District Judge Cuthbertson decided that my father should show cause why it was not an abuse of court time in commencing proceedings to go back into possession and eject Shirley Carr from the land. This is still considered as further injustice. There are also issues arising from the fact that the former Recorder ruled that Shirley Carr has no title to the disputed land, yet granted an injunction in the favour of Shirley Carr preventing me from ever going back on to that land. There are questions of law arising from that matter. Clearly when my father and I go back into possession of the land, that injunction will be called into question. Perhaps that could be a reason for my fathers right of action now being challenged?
In the circumstances that I given here, which are included in my letter to the Chief Clerk of The Sunderland County Court dated 22 October 1997 which remains unanswered, I cannot consider that justice can be served by District Judge Cuthbertson presiding further in these matters. I cannot consider, in the light of the matters that I have detailed here, and in my letter to the Sunderland County Court of 22 October 1997, that the judge would be "impartial" as is required by law and by agreements made under the European Charter of Human Rights.
6) It had been agreed that the Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf and the Lord Chief Justice would look at evidence that I have supplied to them which clearly shows that the former Recorder had not told the truth when he gave judgement. Following a reply received by me from Lord Woolf, it is now unclear whether he has actually viewed all of the evidence that I supplied to him. There has been no indication received that the Lord Chief Justice has examined the evidence that I sent for his use. I presently await a reply to my letter to Lord Woolf requesting that he confirm that he has examined all of the evidence that I detailed had been sent for his, and the Lord Chief Justice's examination.
7) It is clearly shown now that the former Recorders allegation that the cases had been subject of consolidation was untrue. I have now sent to Lord Woolf the evidence that is now available to me which proves that untrue statement, along with other untrue statements made by the former Recorder.
There are now additional issues involving the amount of time that I was allowed before Lord Justice Pil and Auld on 6 June 1997. The time that I was allowed to put my arguments was the same time normally allowed under one case. As there had not been consolidation of the actions, then clearly there were four cases at issue. I have again raised this matter in my letter to Lord Woolf. This time I have been able to provide the evidence that shows there had indeed not been consolidation of the cases. That evidence is the Order made by District Judge Scott Phillips on 1 June 1994 refusing Shirley Carr's application for consolidation of the cases.
8) In the light of the circumstances latterly detailed here, I request a general adjournment of the present proceedings pending matters being heard before The European Court. I will agree to undertake to inform the court when my application has been lodged for registration of the matter to be heard before the European Court. I understand in any event, by formal procedures, that the court will be informed when my application has been lodged in Strasbourg.
9) Costs of this application for adjournment to be costs in the cause.
For and on behalf of the Plaintiff
Mr. Maurice Kellett.
E-mail to:Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk