|
|
Carr, along with her use of perjury, conspiracy, and conspiracy to defraud are presently being protected by mason Chief Constable of Northumbria Police S. Strachan and the Judiciary.
Miss S. Carr 16A The Lyons.
16 The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole,
Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne-Wear,
Tyne-Wear, DH5 0HT.
19th November 1998.
Miss Carr,
I am in receipt of the letter which you placed through the letterbox of my home this morning. First can I request that you desist from entering this property. There is the normal means of sending a letter which is called the postal service. You have no authority to enter here and I cannot give it.
In paragraph 1 of your letter dated 18th, November you write that Judge Jones has signed the license as per Judge Cooke’s order. I do not accept that any of these judges had any such right or authority to do that. My reasons for stating this will be made clear to you in the course of this letter
You are aware of course that that this property is not registered to me. In this circumstance I cannot give you any permission relative to anything concerning this property. You must seek the permission of the owner of it.
You were of course aware that guttering had been fitted on the 16A The Lyons side of the party wall before you again commenced your recent proceedings against me. I gather that you asked for evidence that that work under the order, which is not accepted, had been carried out. Sanity would suggest that by the same way and method you alleged the work had not been carried out, would have served as the same to satisfy you that the work had been carried out.
There is now also a major error Miss Carr. Among former Recorder Fryer-Spedding’s lies, concoctions of false stories, he allowed you the liberal use of perjury, a considerable amount of these facts are shown and proved by my affidavits of 13th August 1997 in case No. DH400950, DH400898 and in addition the affidavit of 4th November 1997 under case No. DH604359 of which are in your possession. The former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding made statements about certain walls which he either said he thought were or were not party walls. It is now shown that you had conceded before that hearing before the former Recorder on October of 1996, that ALL walls between your property No. 16 and 16a The Lyons ARE party walls. That evidence was not available until after the former Nancy Bone Solicitor was truck off and her firm had been closed down in 1997/98 by the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors. This I am sure throws a different light on matters. It means first that the damaged walls at the front of 16a which occurred on 13th and 14th November 1993 ARE party walls. This means that the damage that was caused during the re-roofing of your property was caused not to "Your" walls as was alleged by you, but to the walls of this property No. 16a The Lyons. In the context of law, which in the foregoing matters between us has been substantially ignored, and it has and can be shown to have been ignored, you had conceded the fact that "ALL" walls between your property No. 16 The Lyons, and this property 16A The Lyons, long before October 1996 when matters then went before the former Recoder. All rulings made in respect of these walls under any allegation that they are "YOUR" walls automatically become null and void.
If you are unsure when you conceded the fact that all walls of which I reference, are party walls, I suggest you ask the woman who Judge Jones says he regarded as having been acting for you rather than assisting you, who is of course Alison Stott. Alison Stott had stated to the Newcastle County Court around January 17th 1996 that up until that time she had not been "ACTING" for you but had only been "ASSISTING" you. It was my contention that as she had only been your "ASSISTANT" my dealings with her, and not with you directly, held no great weight. You have of course in your possession the affidavits sworn by my wife and I relative to the statement made by Alison Stott before yourself, the former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding, myself, my wife, and counsel Michelle Temple around January 17th 1996. If you want the date of when Alison Stott made that declaration to the Newcastle County Court, then you will find it upon those affidavits.
As judge Jones has recently ignored the declaration made by Alison Stott in January of 1996, of which I refer, then her communication to me conceding that "All" walls between your property 16 The Lyons, and this property No. 16a The Lyons are party walls is now valid for the purposes of law. This I am sure you will agree throws a different light on matters. I don’t think I need to expand upon this further. The fact that you also now agree that you deliberately excluded from the judges bundle a copy of the court order made on 1st June 1994, which was as you know, an order that the three cases could not be tried as a consolidated action was significant and very prejudicial to me. You were the applicant for consolidation of the cases. As you know it was Alison Stott who was authorised to prepare the judges bundle not you. Alison Stott did not make known the fact that she had passed on that work to you until I found a considerable amount of documentation from it. I think the correct term to use for this action is, deception. Deception , and character assassination were of course almost in total your only means of defence and prosecution throughout proceedings and extend even to the present time.
So as there is new evidence available to show the things I refer to here, then as far as I am concerned until the Masonic riddled judiciary admit that what has been done in the name of alleged justice, admits that justice has not applied , then I am not prepared to accept any ruling of any judges who prefer to turn, as it were, a blind eye, to the lies, concoctions of false stories used by the former Recorder and your liberal use of perjury.
The Home Secretary has been informed of my stance. Lord Irvine has also been made aware of it as well. The two affidavits alone of which I have referred to herein, show beyond all reasonable doubt that the former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding did carry out the majority of the despicable acts against me. Sergeant Urqhuart, who after having looked at those affidavits of which I refer, said that there could be a question of action having been taken to pervert the course of justice. There can be little doubt that such action was taken, and the proof of that has been made available now to many throughout the world. You have part of the proof contained in the affidavits of 13th August and 4th November 1997 along with the authorised transcript of judgement of former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding. In the light of these facts I am alleging that there has been a conspiracy against me and such conspiracy is I believe none other than a conspiracy of Freemasonry who I now think it safe to say rule our judiciary, or at the very least have massive influence over it Matters Miss Carr , I assure you, are far from concluded. Only when justice is done will these matters conclude.
You will of course recall that none of the evidence to show your perjury in the civil action was allowed to be shown to the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court on Monday or Tuesday of this week. I wonder, did that not surprise you? A person who uses perjury in a civil action surely is discredited in a criminal action? It should have been shown to the magistrates, and in time it will be shown along with all of the other facts which go to show that the independence of the judiciary has allowed its take over by the influence of Freemasonry. Things are not concluded either in the case of this weeks action in the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court.
So to conclude this letter Miss Carr I cannot give any rights or permission on matters concerning a property which is not owned by me. The guttering which has been placed on this side of the party wall between this property and yours is an infringement of rights. In the light that you had conceded that ALL walls between your property and this property No. 16A The Lyons through Alison Stott Solicitor, then any judgement made contrary to that afterwards is deemed therefore as being null and void.
As you know contained in the title of this property No. !6a The Lyons there is anyway contained this same Declaration. One might presume that the former Recorder should have seen that, so why did his ruling as it were, fly in the face of that fact?
Matters regarding the alleyway are also far from being concluded. The statement made by the former Recorder, which is included in his approved transcript of judgement, states that up until the time my parents sold your predecessors in title their property No. 16 The Lyons, the way used to access the rear of this property No. 16A The Lyons was by means of the alleyway and the rear garden of your property. He wrongly stated that as that right had not been registered in the conveyance of the property in 1982 then it came to an end. He had by virtue of that statement bypassed Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925. No man Miss Carr is above the law, please bear this in mind. This includes all men and of course women. I have no reason other than to believe that former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding would have been very familiar with that particular section of the 1925 Act. By virtue of Section 62 of the 1925 Law of Property Act alone, I could not therefore have been a trespasser on the alleyway as was ruled by the former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding. By virtue of this Act his ruling relative to it is also null and void. I still regard you as a trespasser on that land and I believe in time the land register will have to be altered. No matter what number of judges choose to ignore this fact, they are themselves defying the law of which they are bound to uphold. Anything other than this, then they are not carrying out that for which they are employed. As I have said, no man is above the law and this equally applies to judges.
So you do not have my permission to enter upon this property. As I do not own it I cannot give such permission. The judgement of Mr. Fryer-Spedding is null and void by reasons included in my affidavits of 13th August and 4th November 1997 of which you are in receipt. As I have already written in this letter I have informed the Home Secretary and Lord Irvine of my decision not to accept the judgement of a man who carried out the acts of which are shown in the affidavits of which I refer. If it can be shown that the contents of these affidavits are untrue, and there is no question that the facts proved in them are true, then I become guilty of perjury. Copies of these affidavits have been supplied to Lord Bingham, Lord Woolf, Lord Irvine, and the Home Secretary and many others including Lord Nolan. I am confident that little time examining them will show that the statements made in them are true. The attached exhibits to them help show that very clearly. As the contents of those affidavits are true and as I have said that is shown beyond any possible reasonable doubt, then I would ask you, what has the former Recorder been guilty of? He is not Miss Carr above the law any more than those who would turn a blind eye to what he has carried out against me.
Yours sincerely
Mr. M. Kellett
-------------------
E-mail to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk