..................................................     ...... 

                              MR. H. SHEPHEARD

Mr. Shepheard, who had conduct of the case in the name of the Treasury Solicitor, on behalf of Judge Simpson and unlawfully, on behalf of Mrs. West, declined to correspond with me after I provided him with my affidavit, on September 17, 1996. The affidavit accused him of perjury and other unlawful acts, committed for the protection of
Judge Simpson. I cannot be sure that it was the affidavit that contributed to the termination of his employment in the Office of the Treasury Solicitor, but in any event, I have not heard from him since.

PERJURY: Mr. Shepheard perjured himself, on December 1, 1995, by knowingly swearing a false affidavit.

False statements in paragraph 3, of his affidavit.
False Statement 1.
"On the 12th September 1995, I finished drafting the 'Defence' of both Defendants'."

i) AFFIDAVIT (disclosing the false statements)

a) The clearly visible date September 5, on the completed Defence document: admitted by Mr. Shepheard himself, in his affidavit, that he did delete it and substituted it with the date 12th;

b) the fact that, if the drafting of the Defence had truly been completed on September 12, the deleted date 5th, could not appear on the finished document;

c) the fact, that the completed 'Defence', which was served, demonstrates by is own heading that it was started as the defence of both Defendants', which fact is again supported by Mr. Shepheard himself, in the 1st, and 2nd sentences, of his paragraph 3, and the date 5th, which has been deleted by him, as his paragraph 3, also confirms,
demonstrates that it was undoubtedly completed, as both Defendants' defence before the date: 5th was added at the end of the document;

d) the amended date: 12th, is written in ink, demonstrating that it was added to the completed 'Defence', which is in type, as is the deleted date 5th;

e) and it is manifest, that if a defence document admitted to have been started as the Defence of both Defendants', is dated 5th, that it was completed on that date and it is also patently clear, that if further drafting of material needed to be done, such drafting could not be added to a document that has been typed up and completed. If further drafting, or drafted material, had to be added to the document that was typed up and completed, the only possible way to add to it would be to prepare a completely fresh document and in such an event, it would necessarily have to bear the typed date 12th, with no deleted, typed date 5th;

f) the 'Bill of Costs, (page 2) corroborates, that the Defence of the 2nd Defendant (and 1st Defendant) was prepared on September 5, and it discloses no claim for work done on the 12th, the date that Mr. Shepheard has sworn that he finished drafting the Defence;

On the face of the indisputable: original documentary evidence, that supports, and corroborates, a) b) c) d) e) and f) above, it is clear that Mr. Shepheard did not finish drafting the 'Defence' on September 12. He has not, nor can he, provide any reasonable, or believable answer to the allegation.

False statement 2.
" The Second Defendants' instructions to me on the 6th September, provided me with material on which the pleading was finished on the 12th September."

Evidence that demonstrates that the above statement is false.
g) It is evident from the defence document itself; that not one piece of material was provided by Mrs. West and Mr. Shepheard will be unable to point any out when, and if my complaints to the Metropolitan Police are investigated, because not one particular for the denials of the allegations and stated known facts,on which my Statement of Claim
relied, has been provided, by either Defendant: contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court;

h) it is evident, from Mr. Shepheard's reply in paragraph 3, of the purported 'Further and Better Particulars' of the 'Defence', that the 2nd Defendant, (Mrs. West) did not provide him with any material on which the pleading was finished: the reply given, by Mr. Shepheard is: "The Second Defendant is, in any event, entitled to claim the privilege
against self-incrimination, to refuse to answer any such question, or request." The reply is, in any event, untrue: designed to take advantage of my ignorance of the law. He would not have served that reply, if I had been legally represented. Mrs West, being a private
citizen, is required to answer allegations of criminal misconduct, as is everyone else. If it is lawful for private individuals to claim privilege against self-incrimination; there would be no Courts: no Prisons: no Justice System. The false reply given, for my eyes, indicates that Mr. Shepheard was desperately trying to maintain Mrs. West's silence, but
more importantly, in the context of his false affidavit, it is another indication that Mrs. West did not provide him with material with which the pleading was said to be finished on September 12, or at any other time. If Judge Simpson was to be protected to the best of Mr. Shepheard's ability, the last thing that he wanted was for Mrs. West to provide him with material.

i) Mrs. West will be unable to support Mr. Shepheards false statement, that she provided him with material on September 6, or at any other time and she will be unable to give details of any such evidence: unable to point to any material provided by her: there simply is not any. The only evidence that she can possibly give, if she has a mind to do so, can
only support me: her accuser;

j) she will be unable to support Mr. Shepheard's false affidavit: in that she: a private citizen, instructed him: a legal Officer: in the employ of the Treasury Solicitor, to legally represent her. As a Court shorthand writer, she knew and knows, as does everyone else, that a private citizen is not entitled to instruct a Government Department to legally
represent her for an alleged corrupt act, out of public funds, or at all. Further, is the indisputable fact, that Mrs. West who had already acknowledged service of the Writ of Subpoena nearly one month before September 6, stating her intention of acting in person and that indisputable fact also reveals that she had no intention of instructing anyone and had no intention of providing material, which material, that she undoubtedly, could have provided, would inevitably have exposed the corrupt Judge Simpson.

False statement 3.
"On the 6th September, I received confirmation, through the Lord
Chancellor's Department, from Mrs. West, that she wished the
Treasury Solicitor to act an her behalf."


k) The indisputable fact that Mr. Shepheard, being a legal Officer knows, again, as we all do, that Mrs. West, being a private citizen, was and is not, entitled to the privilege of legal representation by a Government Department for an alleged corrupt act, out of public funds where vicarious liability does not apply;

l) The fact that Mrs. West must have been aware that she was not entitled to instruct the Treasury Solicitor, nor to ask Mr. Shepheard to represent her in the name of the Treasury Solicitor and it is most unlikely, that a precedent can be found, where a private individual has informed either the Lord Chancellor, or the Treasury Solicitor, that the Treasury Solicitor's legal representation is required to defend an action alleging corruption and where such instruction has been obeyed;

m) also the fact, that even had the above false statement been true, Mr. Shepheard would have known, that to legally represent Mr. West in the name of the Treasury Solicitor, was unlawful.

n) Mrs. West's potential answer, as to whether she informed the Lord Chancellor's Department that she wished the Treasury Solicitor to act for her on, or before September 6, or at all;

o) her potential evidence, as to whether she did, or did not, instruct the Treasury Solicitor, through either the Lord Chancellor's Department, or through Mr. Shepheard, to represent her;

p) the non-existence of originl, or copy correspondence, between Mrs. West and the Lord Chancellor's Department, that confirms Mr. Shepheard's false statement;

q) her potential answer as to whether the Lord Chancellor's Department, or the Treasury Solicitor's Office, contacted her, at any time before September 6, to ascertain whether she did wish the Treasury Solicitor to act for her.

Further conclusive documentary evidence of Mr. Shepheard's deception and unlawful repredentation of Mrs. West, to maintain her silence, for the protection of Circuit Judge Alan Simpson.

1. Mrs. West's own 'Acknowledgement of sevice', which put her on lawful Court record, as acting in person.

2. The unlawful 'Acknowledgement of service' filed and served, purportedly on Mrs. West's behalf,  while she was on lawful Court record, as acting in person.

3. The unlawful transfer of proceedings to London, under Order 77, Rule 2.

Mr. Shepheard did not trigger the transfer of proceedings, under Order 77, as he did not take over conduct of the case until September 5, but he knew from that date, that the action had been erroneously transferred, with false grounds for the transfer having been stated on the acknowledgement of service form, but he kept silent, until confronted by Master Tennant two weeks later: September 19; after my application, for the action to be re-transferred back to Hull. The false grounds,that were submitted to the Action Department, at the Royal Courts of Justice are:

a) that the Defendants' residence is not within the district of the District Registry: patently untrue;
b) that there is no indorsement on the Writ that the Plaintiff's cause
arose within that district: again, patently untrue.

4. Unlawful 'Notice of Change of  Solicitor'

i) Served by Mr. Shepheard, upon myself and upon Mrs West, to draw her attention to the fact that conduct of the case against her had been taken from her, the 'NOTICE' being served, without it having been sealed by the Court, and without it having been filed with the Court, contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court, Orders 67, r, 1. para. (1), and (3)

ii The rules state that a change of Solicitor can take effect only from the date that it is served, and filed. but Mr. Shepheard's unlawful 'Notice' was not filed, and in any event, he purports it to take effect from August 29, 1996: the date that the erroneous
acknowledgement of service was filed: over one month earlier.

ii) The unlawful 'Notice' states:
a) To - The above named Second Defendant, Sheila Margaret West, indicating; that she had no knowledge that Mr. Shepheard had any intention of legally representing her before September 22; that she could not have instructed him, nor could she have provided material, before September 22; that the conduct of the case was indeed, taken away from her without her consent and without her prior knowledge; that Mr. Shepheard did not and could not finish drafting the Defence of both Defendants' on September 12.

b) That the The Treasury Solicitor has been appointed to act as the Solicitor of the Second Defendant, in place of the Second Defendant, Sheila Margaret West in person; demonstrating that because Mr. Shepheard had been appointed to act for Mrs. West, as the 'Notice' dated September 22, informed her, he was not instructed by her on
September 6, when she was on Court record, as acting in person. Mrs. West is not in the position to appoint: ordain; anyone. If she had truly either instructed, or appointed Mr. Shepheard, as Mr. Shepheard purports, it is unrealistic to suppose that either Mrs. West, or whoever it was that truly appointed him, would have instructed, or ordered him,
to commit corrupt acts and if his appointment was one of a judicial nature, it would be close to being unbelievable to most people, although I have experienced exactly what can happen when one of Her Majesty's Judges' has acted corruptly: it seems that corrupt Judge
must be protected for the good name of the Lord Chancellor's Department and for the good name of the English Justice System.

I now rely on the outcome of the Metropolitan Police investigation into my allegations, against Mr. Shepheard, in the knowledge that the matter of his serious corrupt acts, including his perjury, can not be ignored. I have furnished the Metropolitan Police with copies of all of the documentary evidence referred to here and that organization now
knows that Mr. Shepheard has absolutely no answer to my allegations against him. I look forward to criminal charges being laid against him. He will have no alternative, but to admit to his corruption, in the knowledge that the documentary evidence would, in any event, prove the case and in the knowledge that both Mrs. West and the person who he unlawfully protected: Judge Simpson, have his measure. They I believe, will admit that my allegations against them, are true if and when, they are charged to answer them.
To Mr. Huebner