A LETTER CONTAINING THESE SAME FACTS, DATE AND REQUEST AS THE LETTER BELOW HAS ALSO BEEN SENT TO THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS, LORD WOOLF.
The Lord Chief Justice, 16A The Lyons,
Rt. Hon. Lord Bingham, Hetton-le-Hole,
House of Lords, Tyne-Wear DH50HT
25 March 1999 My ref: LIP/MK/07
Further to the copy of a letter dated 5 March 1999 I find it necessary to write again concerning a ruling which yourself and the Master of The Rolls, the Rt. Hon. Lord Woolf made in 1997.
I was a litigant in case DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650 wrongly tried due to fraud, as a consolidated action before former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding at the Newcastle County Court in October of 1996. I have previously sent to you copies of my affidavits of 13 August 1997 submitted in case DH604359 and my affidavit of 4 November 1997 submitted in case DH400950 and DH400898. These affidavits show that the former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding who tried the cases lied, concocted false stories, allowed my opponent, Miss Shirley Carr, the liberal use of perjury and made at least one very relevant statement in complete defiance of law of which he could none other than have been aware of at the time he made the statement relative to it.
On January 17 1996 solicitor Alison Stott, of Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham City, declared to the Newcastle County Court presided over by the former Recorder Mr John H. Fryer-Spedding : " 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". Mr Fryer Spedding replied to her: " You are either acting for Miss Carr or you are not". Alison Stott's reply was "Well I am now Sir". Affidavits are available detailing that declaration by Alison Stott. The relevance of this is that before 17 January 1996 Alison Stott had attended the Courts with Shirley Carr. On one such occasion Alison Stott had been given work by the Durham County Court, which in the circumstances was unlawful and resulted in my imprisonment and subsequent stroke. The circumstances of how the injunction was granted which allowed my imprisonment was also equally unlawful. The injunction was granted after proceedings with regard to the application for it had been adjourned. The appeal against the injunction was heard by the same judge as whom the Order was being appealed from.
The other matter in regard to the conduct of my opponent Miss Shirley Carr and her "McKenzie friend" solicitor Alison Stott is that during the period of time Alison Stott has agreed that she was not acting for Miss Carr, District Judge Scott-Phillips sitting at The Durham County Court had granted her the work of preparing the Judges Bundle ready for trial. Without the consent or knowledge of either the Court or myself Alison Stott then secretly passed on that work to her friend Shirley Carr to Carry out. On 1st June 1994 District Judge Scott-Phillips, sitting at The Durham County Court had made an Order refusing consolidation of the three cases as had been applied for by Miss Carr. Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding tried the cases as a consolidated action under case NE401650 where I was referred to as the Defendant in all whereas I was in fact the Plaintiff in two out of the three of those actions. I had prepared my cases and defence on the basis that the cases were to be tried one after the other.
Six Weeks before the trial the Legal Aid Board had withdrawn legal aid from me by falsely alleging that the opinion of Counsel then representing me, Michelle Temple, was unfavourable to the chances of winning the cases. A copy of the written opinion of Michelle Temple remains as evidence to show that the withdrawal of legal aid was under false pretences. Previously the Legal Aid Board refused my application for legal aid by falsely stating that there was already an injunction in place to prevent drainage coming from an adjoining property onto ours. I am in receipt of a copy of the original application to the Legal Aid Board which makes it very clear that the application was in respect of obtaining Legal aid to obtain an injunction to stop the drainage from taking place.
The approved transcript of the Recorders judgement, where some of his lies and at least one very relevant statement in contradiction of law are clearly shown, commenced with the statement "Under these consolidated actions". Around nine months after the trial, Shirley Carr agreed that she had deliberately left out documentation from the from the Judges Bundle which had included her application to, and refusal by The Durham County Court for consolidation of the cases. Despite both Shirley Carr and her solicitor friend Alison Stott being in full awareness that there was an Order in force at the time of the trial refusing consolidation of the cases still both of them failed to inform the Court that Miss Carr had left out from the Judges Bundle the Order refusing such consolidation. That surely was an extension of the original fraud that had been used.
On 6 June 1997 Lord Justice Auld and Pill refused me leave to appeal the corrupt judgement of the Former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding. In a letter that I subsequently received from the London Appeal Court I was informed that I could Petition The House of Lords on the matter of the judgement. The letter said that I should write to that effect to Lord Justice Auld . The reply which I received from Lord Justice Auld was in refusing me leave to do that as well.
I have recently been informed that despite the refusal by Lord Just Auld to allow me to Petition The House of Lords, I still have a lawful right to approach The House of Lords on these matters. My letter of last week to The Royal Courts of Justice requesting the relevant form has received the reply from Mr. Hill that I cannot Petition The House of Lords. I do not accept the situation in which fraud and corruption have placed me.
In the circumstances that the evidence of my allegations against former Recorder John. H. Fryer-Spedding, solicitor Alison Stott, and Shirley Carr is substantial then as you will know by my letter of March 6, I have had little option in the circumstances but to declare the judgement of John H. Fryer-Spedding void. It would seem the judiciary are incapable of doing that.
My "arguments with Freemasons" was introduced into proceedings before Mr Fryer-Spedding by Counsel for Miss Carr, a Mr. Merrit. The subject had no bearing whatsoever on the issues to be adjudged. Some months before the trial, in May of 1996, I was thanked by the Rt. Hon. Lord Nolan for a dossier that I had sent to him that was used by The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. Certainly Freemasons were aware that I had done that. Statements made to me by masons confirmed that.
Under the accepted principles of possible conflicts of interests, I therefore request that as you were party to the ruling that it should be left to the individual judge whether or not to declare membership of Freemasonry, then in these circumstances, and in the circumstances I detail herein regarding matters of Freemasonry, I require to know whether you yourself are a Freemason or have ever been one.
I proceed under the following: No man is above the law. Rules concerning possible conflicts of interests. In the Public Interest and under the Ruling made in 1956 by the late Rt. Hon. Lord Denning being, "No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgement of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything".
Finally, it is I think reasonable that all Orders made resulting from and as a consequence of the fraud, deception, and corruption must too be regarded as being void. I reserve as my right therefore not to be bound by any such further Orders and that under the circumstances which I briefly detail herein, it is my lawful right to defend my rights by all and any means possible.
I would also request your early reply to the other matters which I detail herein.
Mr. M. Kellett
The reply which I have received back from the Private Secretary to Lord Bingham has failed to answer and of the questions contained in my letter to Lord Bingham. This also includes my demand that as he and the Master of the Rolls are required to declare any membership of Freemasonry. When I approached Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham and Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf in 1997 on the matter of masons involved in the injustice handed out to me by judges. They then ruled that it should be left to the individual judge whether or not to declare membership of Freemasonry. Under the accepted principles of the requirement for impartiality of the Judiciary, Lords Bingham and Woolf are therefore required to make the necessary declaration that they themselves are not masons if their ruling is to be accepted as valid. They too are not above the law or the rules under which we are held to be bound.
I was adjudged bankrupt on 18 March with regard to the Court costs ordered by the corrupt former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding. The judge who granted that Bankruptcy Petition was not impartial. The fraud, deception, and corruption of which I alledge, is backed up by very substantial evidence. However, no matter how substantial the evidence is, if those who are empowered to examine it and then act on it refuse to do that, then it is shown that corruption within the British Judiciary is being protected by very high authority. I am in little doubt that the power of the Masonic Mafia who infest the British Judicial and Legal Systems is still forefront in the continuation to deny me justice.Today, 28 March 1999 I have been threatened with possible further arrest should I fail to see the Official Receiver. It is my contention that all rulings following the original fraud, deception, and corruption that have clearly been used against me to obtain the original Court Order, must therefore equally be void. Universally accepted principles of justice suggest none other than this is my right.
THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MY BEING BANKRUPT. THERE IS ONLY THE QUESTION NOW OF HOW FAR THOSE IN JUDICIAL HIGH AUTHORITY ARE PREPARED TO GO TO RUIN SOMEONE BY CONTINUING AND COMPOUNDING THE ORIGINAL FRAUD, DECEPTION AND CORRUPTION. IT IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO DEFEND BY ALL POSSIBLE MEANS ANY MOVES THAT MAY BE MADE AGAINT ME AS A RESULT OF THE FRAUD, DECEPTION AND CORRUPTION. HOW FAR I AM PREPARED TO GO WILL BE DECIDED BY JUST HOW FAR AUTHORITY IS PREPARED TO GO IN ITS CONTINUANCE TO TRY TO RAM INJUSTICE DOWN MY THROAT. AS GOD ALMIGHTY IS MY WITNESS I SHALL NEVER GIVE WAY TO WHAT IS BEING DONE TO ME. I WILL NEVER GIVE UP.
Return to opening page.
Go to page index listing
Go to Links
Any E-mail please to:Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk