The Lord Chancellor,

Rt. Hon. Lord Irvine,                               16A The Lyons,

Lord Chancellors Department,                   Hetton-le-Hole,

Selborne House,                                          Tyne-Wear,

54-60 Victoria Street,                                   DH5 OHT.

London SW1E 6QW

1st February 1998




Dear Lord Irvine,

I appeal for your intervention in the matters contained in the enclosed documentation and video film.

The evidence that I supply herein does show that the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding had carried out the acts detailed in my affidavits of 13 August and 4 November 1997. I am sure that it will be agreed by you that in these circumstances I have suffered gross injustice. The video film evidence enclosed, which was that placed before the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding shows the problems that we continue to suffer from my opponent and her property. We continue to be subject of flooding from my opponents property. The party wall damaged on the weekend of 13 and 14 November 1993 continues to let in water into our kitchen and remains in danger of collapse through our property's roof.

We are denied access, due to Mr. Fryer Spedding's judgement, to the rear of our property which has a large garden area and buildings other than by route through our living room. Mr. Fryer Spedding had agreed that we had used the disputed land and the rear garden of my opponents property to access the rear of our property while my parents owned my opponents property. In his transcript of judgement he said that as my parents had not reserved our right of way across their property at the time they sold it then our right of way came to an end. I cannot believe that Mr. Fryer Spedding was not aware of Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925, which in any event protected the right which my parents gave us when we purchased our adjoining property from them on 2 February 1976. This has led to an impossible position and I can assure there is now a possible health hazard due to the refuse building up at the rear of our property because it can not be safely transported through our home.

I remain of the opinion that my concerns regarding corrupt elements of Freemasonry in this area is the cause of that which has been done to me. I also believe that the dossier which I sent to the Rt. Hon. The Lord Nolan for use by the Home affairs Commons Select Committee has had a bearing on these matters. I have recently supplied the Hon. Lord with further documentation. He has informed me that he has returned to being a member of The Law Lords and therefore must remain impartial in these matters.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Woolf and the Lord Chief Justice had discussed matters and decided that it should be left to the individual Judge whether or not to declare any interest in Freemasonry. I have reservations about that decision. I understand Freemasons swear an oath to the ancient God Baal, which was of course the name the ancients gave to the Devil. I am and remain of the christian faith and hold that it is my right therefore to be tried before a judge of the same faith.

I believe that District Judge Cuthbertson's acts have not only been grossly unjust but that such injustice has been a deliberate act. Though I have requested him to declare any membership of Freemasonry he has not replied to my request. I believe that his latest judgement that my father William Kellett has no reasonable cause of action to go back into possession of our land is a further extension of the injustice that we continue to suffer. It is shown in the approved transcript of judgement of the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding that he said that my father was the one most likely to have gained title to the land which is subject of the dispute. He had ruled that our opponent Miss Carr had no title to that land.

I have made complaints about the improper way Mr. Cuthbertson granted an injunction on 17 October 1995 and I have no doubts whatsoever that his unjust actions since that time may be related to my complaints against him. He has most certainly not been impartial in these proceedings.

I am now also in a position to produce a copy of the original application that I made for legal aid. I have recently obtained my files from the former Nancy Bone Solicitors and it is now possible to show that the Legal Aid Board's original refusal of legal aid on the grounds that I already had an injunction to stop that drainage shown on the video film enclosed herein, was also unjust. It will be seen that the application for legal aid which went before the Board had not led it to conclude that such an injunction was in operation. In my appearance before the Legal Aid Board at my appeal, I made it clear that there was no injunction in place to prevent the drainage from taking place. When I eventually was able to obtain legal aid, it really did not come as too much of a surprise when five weeks before the trials the Board withdrew legal aid from me. That situation resulted in my not having all of my files for use in the trials, when I was then left with little choice but to represent myself. My former solicitors had retained them for costing purposes.

In the matter of the files held by lien at the former Nancy Bone Solicitors who have now been closed down on the intervention of the Office of The Supervision of Solicitors, District Judge Scott-Phillips action is also now called into question. It will be seen from the letter enclosed herein dated 14 June 1995 addressed to the Chief Clerk of the Durham County Court that they too regarded my visit to their offices to obtain copies from my files as an Order of the Court. When that Order was breached by Nancy Bone Solicitors, District Judge Scott-Phillips said that it had not been an Order of the Court but had only been allowed by the Consent of Nancy Bone. Both the letter of 14 June 1995 and the Court attendance note attached to this letter show that I had not attended that firms offices by the consent of Nancy Bone but that it had indeed been regarded by her as an Order of the Court. My opponents solicitor also referred to that visit as an Order of the Court. In those circumstances I was unable to obtain any copies from my files that were held by that firm.

I am aware that there is a lot of documentation enclosed herein and that your time is limited. I assure you my Lord that there is much more and contained herein is only the basic material to show those things which I detail to you.

Last week after my doctor expressed concern for my safety our home was subject of a police search when I left it. I have been advised by my doctors that the stress brought about by these matters is likely to prove fatal for me. They have verified that in their letters to the court. My wife's health is now being very seriously affected and this has only added to my own considerable health problems. My father in law died shortly before christmas as a result of a stroke brought about by a sudden rise in hypertension. That rise coincided with my father in laws serious concerns about what was being done to myself and my wife by these acts of gross injustice. We attribute his death at least in part to those acts of injustice.

I have commenced to try to have these matters heard before the European Court of Human Rights but although they have been supplied with the documents that they require for the initial application, from the reply which I have received from Strasbourg it is implied that they had not received those documents. Further approaches are being made to the European Court in an attempt to clarify the situation.

I beg you in the name of God Almighty to give earnest consideration to the material which I enclose herein. I take no pleasure in highlighting the acts carried out against me by those who most certainly carried them out in the knowledge that they were unjust.


Yours sincerely


Mr. M. Kellett


Any E-mail please to: 

Back to opening page

Back to page list