The Office For the Supervision of Solicitors showed that its interests lay in the protection of corrupt solicitors. Files I sent to them went missing. There is little doubt that the Office For the Supervision of Solicitors is well and truly infected with the influence of the Masonic Mafia.
Mr. A. O'Malley, 16A The Lyons,
Office for the Supervision Hetton-le-Hole,
of Solicitors, Tyne-Wear,
Victoria Court, DH5 OHT.
CV32 5A Your Ref: 9708/1746/36/AOM
Our Ref: MK/LS/102
8 December 1997
Dear Mr. O'Malley,
I thank you for your letter of 10 November 1997. I apologise for my late reply to it but other ongoing matters which have included the death of a family member has prevented from replying earlier.
I have read the copy of the letter that you had received from Alison Stott Solicitor and its contents are not accepted as true.
I have documentary evidence that will show that Alison Stott Solicitor had in fact broadcast to others that there was an application for my imprisonment. I will also be able to provide you with copies of letters that I sent to Alison Stott asking her to explain her reasons for broadcasting to others that there was an application for my imprisonment. She failed to give her reasons for doing that when she replied to some of my letters to her. The evidence that I will provide to you as soon as I possibly can, has came from my files that were held by the former Nancy Bone Solicitors which Mr Wood of Blackett, Hart, & Pratt Solicitors of Durham kindly released to me.
Alison Stott was also asked in my letters to her to agree that she was aware that the cases DH00950,DH400898, NE401650 had never been subject of consolidation as the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding had wrongly alleged when he delivered judgment in those cases. Alison Stott was fully aware that those cases had never been subject of consolidation and this was another of my questions to her that she failed to make reply. My opponents application for consolidation of the cases had been refused by the court. There are also other issues relative to Alison Stott that I wish to raise in addition to those I have mentioned here.
Finally in relation to the former Nancy Bone Solicitors, there is the question of my counterclaim against that firm following their court action against me. The actions of Nancy Bone in holding a lien over my files caused me considerable difficulties when I attempted to proceed to represent myself.
While it is shown that the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding lied when he made a number of statements when he delivered judgment against me, District Judge Cuthbertson who has taken up other matters related to the actions latterly mentioned, is presently attempting to force me to accept the judgment of the former Recorder. I have made it clear to Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, and District Judge Cuthbertson, that I have no intention of accepting any order made by any judge who has based his reasons for judgment upon his own lies and his own concoctions of stories which had no bearing on the truth and substantial proof of evidence that I placed before him, and had clearly allowed my opponent to use considerable perjury both in her defence and prosecution.
I realise that the statements that I make about Mr Fryer Spedding in the latter paragraph are very serious, but I consider the more serious matter are to his reasons for using lies and concocting untrue stories when he delivered his judgment. A penal clause has now been added to Mr Fryer Spedding's judgment so it may be that I might be imprisoned again in the not too distant future. Last year I was imprisoned when it was alleged that I had breached an injunction that had been granted on 19 October 1995 in improper circumstances by a District Judge Cuthbertson. I had a stroke during my imprisonment and have not fully recovered from it.
Alison Stott's involvement in that matter of the injunction of 19 October 1995, at a time when she led us to believe that she was acting as the advocate of my opponent, also requires some consideration. On 17 January 1996 Alison Stott told Mr. Fryer Spedding, Counsel, Michelle Temple and others that up to that time she had not been "acting" for my opponent but had only been "assisting" her. That matter is described in two affidavits that were placed before Mr Fryer Spedding. As it had been believed that Alison Stott had been acting as the advocate for my opponent the court had also given her the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial. Unknown to ourselves or the court she then passed on that work for my opponent to carry out. These matters came to light when documentation was found to be missing from the bundles that I received.
I have now published in a number of sources over many parts of the world the proof of some of the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding's lies and concoctions. If he wishes to pursue a libel action against me then I will be happy to be given the opportunity to show the proof of his lies and concoctions. The only honourable thing that I consider that he did was to retire at about the same time as I reported some of his actions to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay.
What has made the situation even more intolerable has been the actions of both Nancy Bone Solicitors and Alison Stott Solicitors which have assisted the outcome.
I pray to God Mr. O'Malley that it will become a necessary requirement that the judiciary and those employed in the Judicial system will one day have to declare any interests that they may have in Freemasonry. I was thanked last year by Lord Nolan for the dossier that I sent to him containing facts that I had learned over eleven years of my own investigations into Freemasonry. I have recently received threats implying that my family are at risk and my property may be burnt down should I not back away from my allegations about corrupt elements of Freemasonry. I have no faith in local police because the membership of Freemasonry within in it is very substantial indeed.
I hope to be able to supply you with documentation to back up my allegations sometime in January 1998.
Mr. M. Kellett.
Around October 1998 O'Malley wrote to say that they could not find my files. He asked that I send to him the last substantive reply that I had received from them. I did that. Nothing further has been heard from him since that time until this present time of January 28 1999. I have been told from several very reliable sources that The Office of The Supervision of Solicitors is in place to protect solicitors not the public. My complaints against corrupt solicitors has now been underway for over four years. It has also been told to me by those same sources that The Office for The Supervision of Solicitors is riddled with Freemasonry. It is very clear by their allegation that they can no longer find the files that they hold containing my complaints and considerable evidence that I have supplied to them, that it is just a furtherance of deliberate injustice. Freemasonry most certainly has a hand in it.
I took part in the recent efficiency survey of The Office of The Supervision of Solicitors. I learned more about them than they learned from me. I wonder if the if the results of the survey are to be published? I was told during that survey that I am up against the forces of darkness of Freemasonry. I was advised to pray to God. I was told other things but I shall reserve them for later.
On Wednesday 24th February 1999 in a telephone conversation with a lady solicitor at The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OFTSOS), I was told that Mr. O'Malley has now gone to work for The Law Society. It seems from what I was told by the solicitor that she cannot locate Mr. O'Malley's later letters that he sent to me. I presently await a further response from the OFTSOS. As things stand, OFTSOS was formerly named The Solicitors Complaints Bureau. Now in the circumstances, I think it should be renamed again to The Office for the Protection of Corrupt Solicitors.
Office For The Supervision of Solicitors, 16A The Lyons,
Victoria Court, Hetton-le-Hole,
8 Dormer Place, Tyne-Wear DH5 OHT.
Warwickshire CV32 5AE.
March 19 1999 Your Ref: 9411/001194/16/MF1
My Ref: LIP/03/MK
Dear Sir or Madam
I am in receipt of your letter of communication of March 2 1999 and reply as follows:
You have enclosed a copy of a letter dated 21 October 1996 that was addressed to me. I have no recollection whatsoever of having received this letter . I do however in the circumstances reply to it.
My complaint against solicitor Nancy Bone was made before she commenced litigation against me. Although she did eventually commence litigation she did not complete this because of her failing to observe procedure in presenting her case before the Court. The case went for trial at Sunderland County Court but as the principle witness, an employee then of Nancy Bone, was not only to present the case, but was to act as the principle witness, the judge ruled that it was not possible for him to hear the case under these circumstances. Nancy Bone did not continue with her action any further. There was also the matter of a counter claim that was to be made by me. The Judge said that I could present it at the next hearing which in fact never took place.
In respect of the mention in paragraph three of your letter of 21st October 1996 relative to the Court Order referred to, evidence does verify that Nancy Bone did not comply with the Court Order referred to. When I returned back to the Court on the matter of the breach of the Order, District Judge Scott-Phillips whom had made the Order denied that it had been his Order, but said it had only been done by the consent of Nancy Bone. When I was able to obtain my files back from Nancy Bone Solicitors following their closure and her striking from the Register, in the files is a copy of her Court attendance notes for the day on which the Order was made, which specifically refers to the Court "Order" that I be allowed to attend her offices to take copies from my files. I am aware that matters regarding the conduct of Judge Scott-Phillips is not within your sphere but nonetheless Nancy Bone did breach that Order and I remained deprived of all of my documentation that had been in use for almost the first year of litigation, following Nancy Bone having withheld it by lien. The documentation was not returned to me until more than a year after the trial of the litigation for which she had been involved to my extreme detriment.
On page two of the letter I refer to of 21 October 1996 it is written:
"You also appear to have complaints with regard to the pagination of bundles of documents. Again, that does not appear to be a complaint against Nancy Bone and if you have any complaints in that respect, again they should be taken up with the Court by way of appropriate application. There are various matters which you mention concerning Mr Graney and Miss Stott. However, neither of the solicitors are or were acting for you and therefore cannot have rendered you a service. As I can only investigate complaints relating to a service which a solicitor has rendered a client it is not appropriate for me to take up complaints against either of the two persons mentioned".
I cannot accept even now that you are not duly bound to act on the matter of Alison Stott and Mr Graney. I believe it to be an accepted fact that the duty of any solicitor is to report any other solicitor when improper conduct is involved or called into question. Are you not yourself or those investigating cases solicitors?
Briefly the details regarding Alison Stott are:
She attended the Durham County Court on a number of occasions with my opponent Miss S. Carr before January 17 1996. She was with Miss Carr on 17th October 1995 and was given work by the Court on that day in respect of an injunction that had been applied for by Miss Carr. The injunction which was most certainly unlawful in the circumstances of how it was granted, was to be instrument in my imprisonment and subsequent stroke. Previous to that time Alison Stott had been given the work of preparing the "Judges Bundle" ready for trial. I was appearing at that time as litigant in person. Alison Stott then secretly passed on that work for S. Carr to carry out. Carr then left out documentation from the Judges bundle which she later claimed she did not think was important. One such piece of documentation she agrees she excluded was her application and subsequent refusal by the Durham County Court for consolidation of the three actions underway between us. On 1st June an Order was made by District Judge Scott-Phillips that the cases could not be tried as a consolidated action. The former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding tried the cases as a consolidated action and I was then referred to as the defendant in the three actions, whereas I was the Plaintiff in two out of the three cases. The cases were tried under case number NE401650 where Miss Carr was the Plaintiff. My two cases under numbers DH400950 and DH400898 were not mentioned in the trial.
Though Miss Carr and solicitor Alison Stott were in receipt of the approved transcript of judgement of John H. Fryer-Spedding which commenced with the words " In this consolidated action", they both failed to inform the Court that the Order refusing consolidation of the cases, made on 1st June 1994 had been deliberately excluded from the Judges Bundle by Carr. I was not in a situation to verify that because my copy of that Oder was being withheld by lien by solicitor Nancy Bone.
More importantly, on January 17 1996 at a directions hearing at the Newcastle County Court before John H. Fryer-Spedding, Alison Stott declared to the Court that she had not been "acting" for Miss Carr but had only been "assisting her". She went on to say that she did that because Carr "seemed to have a good grasp of the situation". John H. Fryer-Spedding's angry reply to her was, "You are either acting for Miss Carr or you are not". Alison Stott replied to him, "Well I am now sir". In attendance at the Court on January 17 1996 were myself and my wife Joyce Kellett, Shirley Carr, and Counsel representing me, Michelle Temple. In effect up until January 17 1996 Miss Stott had agreed that she was acting only as a " McKenzie friend" to Miss Carr and in these circumstances it is considered that both Miss Stott and Carr had used fraud to obtain an unfair advantage.
In any event it was unlawful for the court to grant Miss Stott any work whatsoever when as she agreed on 17th January 1996 she had not been "acting" for Miss Carr but had only been "assisting her". Affidavits have been sworn in respect of the declaration made by Alison Stott on that day of 17 January 1996 and I know that Counsel Michelle Temple will undoubtedly confirm the declaration made by Miss Stott on that day because she was astonished by the admission that Miss Stott had made.
If you are trying to tell me that there is no action that you can take on this matter, I simply cannot accept it. As I have previously written, and perhaps you can confirm this, is it not the duty of a solicitor to report another solicitor when improper is involved? I have suffered great loss as a result of what has taken place and this loss will have to be made good.
In the matter of Paul Graney, he was indeed not acting for me but in proceedings there was a Statutory Declaration produced which had been sworn by him. When evidence was made available to show that he had sworn that untrue information, he agreed to swear an affidavit effectively retracting the false information that he had sworn. Using the same argument as above, is it not the duty of any solicitor to report another when acts such as these have been used?
Returning back to the matter of Nancy Bone and the attendant issues of solicitor Alison Stott and Mr Graney I was still sending documentation and was in contact with Mr. O'Malley even last year so how can you explain the statement in the letter of which I refer which says that investigations had been closed?
There is also the matter of the very substantial amount of documentation I sent to you last year appertaining to my complains of which I understand you could not find.
I look forward to your early reply.
Mr. M. Kellett
Reply received from the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors dated 22 April 1999.
Dear Mr Kellett
Thank you for your letter of 19 March 1999.
I realise that you are disssatisfied with our decision, and appreciate how frustrating it can be when the outcome of a complaint is not was, perhaps expected at the outset. However, you have not raised any new issues which need to be investigated and so we will not be re-opening our investigation of your complaint, and our file will remain closed.
You do, though, have the right to request the Legal Services Ombudsman to review both our hanling of your complaint and our decision. Any review the ombudsman undertakes is entirely free of charge and completely independant from our original investigation. If she believes that our investigation was less than adequate, or our decision was in any way flawed, she will make her recommendations accordingly. While you may disagree with our decision, I am afraid that we shall be taking no further action on your behalf, and any concerns you now have s=hould be addressed to the Ombudsman. Refrettably, therefore. I have to tell you that we shall be entering into no more correspondence with you, and any letters you send to us will not be acknowledged, but merely placed on our file for record purposes.
I am sorry that my letter does not contain more positive news for you, and I am sorry too that in all the circumstances, I cannot be more helpful.
There has been no investigation carried out by the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors. They declined to investigate my complaints by reason that matters were still ongoing in court. Then they wrote to say they could not locate my files. Whether they ever did manage to locate them is still unknown. What I can say is that my complaints started in 1994, none have have received a formal answer. I DO NOT DOUBT NOW THAT the OFFICE FOR THE SUPERVISION OF SOLICITORS, SHOULD BE RENAMED "OFFICE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CORRUPT SOLICITORS.". It is time that complaints against solicitors were handled by a totally independent body which is not linked with the Law Society which I may add has also satisfactorily shown to me that their main work is in the protection of solicitors, even if they are shown to be corrupt.
Contact has now been made with the Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman on May 6 1999 and I am awaiting the necessary application form. I have little faith in a just resolution due to past experience. However, it is another course of action which has to be tried before I can judge it.
AS OFFICERS OF THE COURTS SOLICITORS TOO SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO DECLARE ANY MEMBERSHIP OF FREEMASONRY OR OF ANY SECRET SOCIETY. THIS WILL ASSIST IN CLEANING UP THE MASONIC INFESTED BRITISH LEGAL PROFESSION AND WILL NO DOUBT REDUCE THE HUGE WORK LOAD OF OFTSOS. WHEN THE MANY CORRUPT MASONIC MAFIA SOLICITORS ARE EXPOSED TO THE LIGHT, JUSTICE MAY AGAIN START TO HAVE A REAL MEANING IN THE BRITISH COURTS. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR ANY SECRET SOCIETY TO OPERATE IN ANY SYSTEM OF JUSTICE LET ALONE BE ALLOWED TO INFEST IT.
Any E-mail please to:Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk
Back to opening page
Back to page list