|
|
Straw was sent some of the evidence to show that I had been subject of what was most certainly a conspiracy. He took no action on that evidence. He therefore failed in the duty required of him which is to act in circumstances such as those I communicated to him. By failing to take the required action, he automatically becomes guilty of the crime of misconduct in public office. It can carry with it a prison sentence of up to seven years. This appears to be further evidence that at least some of those who rule over us are criminals. (January 3, 2000)
The Home Secretary, Mr. M. Kellett
The Rt. Hon. J. Straw, 16A The Lyons,
50 Queen Anne's Gate, Hetton-le-Hole,
London SW1H 9AC Tyne-Wear.
September 29 1998.
Dear Sir
Your Mr Durkin has confirmed to me by telephone that No. 10 Downing Street has referred this matter to your department following my approach to the Prime Minister by letter.
The two affidavits which I enclose one was sworn on November 4th 1997 and the other on 13th August 1997. They relate to cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. The affidavits themselves will be self-explanatory. They certainly show that the former Recorder did lie, and among other things, made one statement, which was very contrary to the law. These affidavits are not the full extent of the available evidence to show the facts of what Mr Fryer Spedding carried out against me. There is also the video evidence which I submitted in proceedings which shows beyond doubt that it had been Mr. Fryer Spedding's deliberate intention to destroy my cases. If you can indicate that you wish to view the videofilm as further evidence to back up the facts of which I complain I can quickly send it on to you?
I have no reason other than believe that Mr Fryer Spedding's reason for doing these things was so as to fabricate reason to rule against me. I attach his probable motivation as my attempts to expose corrupt elements of Freemasonry.
Following illegal proceedings at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court, Tyne-Wear twelve years ago I started to investigate Freemasonry within my own immediate area. These proceedings came after my findings of probable corruption at the former British Coal Estates Department at Ryhope, near Sunderland. I was battered and immediately afterwards I was struck by a car that was driven at me. The man, who carried out those acts, and I, went before the Houghton Magistrates Court. Two magistrates sat on the bench on the day of the hearing of this matter. One of the magistrates was well acquainted with both of us. Later he alleged that he had stood down at that hearing. The remaining magistrate was required to have the qualification of Stipendairy Magistrate. My investigations and additional confirmation from a police officer confirmed that the remaining magistrate did not hold such qualifications as that of a Stipendairy Magistrate. When I wrote to the Clerk to the Justices at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court, Mr. Bavidge, who still remains as Clerk at that Court, to have him verify that the remaining magistrate was qualified as a Stipendairy Magistrate, I had difficulty in obtaining a reply from him. Eventually I received his reply that the magistrate concerned was on holiday and that he was therefore unable to have him verify that he was so qualified. A policemen told me that the Clerk would have been fully aware that the magistrate concerned held no such qualification and would not have needed to contact him to have it verified.
The magistrate who alleged he had stood down was and remains a Freemason. The man who carried out the attack on me supplied the local Masonic Hall with materials for use in its social functions. He walked free from the court. The magistrate who alleged he had stood down, a William Moseley, attended at that Masonic Hall. The Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the actions in court.
The matter was referred to Downing Street and then was passed to the Lord Chancellors Department. I had asked that verification be given that the remaining magistrate was so qualified to act in his single capacity. The eventual reply, which I received from a Mr. J.J. Death of the Lord Chancellors Department, was that as the information I was seeking could be construed as being for mischievous purposes, I was not to be given that information. The whole matter was thus effectively covered up in this manner. This sir is why I started to investigate Freemasonry. I now know that Freemasonry has a strangle hold on the Judiciary and has substantial influence within the police. Certainly I believe this is true within the Northeast England area.
In May of 1996 I was thanked by letter for a dossier which I supplied to the Rt. Hon. Lord Nolan for use in the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee of Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. I never made any secret that I had sent the Hon. Lord that dossier. There still remains considerable concern about the press release following that Enquiry. It was as I recall that there had not been any wrongful acts found with regard to Freemasons employed within the Police and Judiciary. It will be seen in the copy of the reply which I received from Lord Nolan's Secretary, of which I enclose that the Enquiry was not set up to investigate specific complaints regarding acts of Freemasons employed within the Police and Judiciary. It follows that there would therefore not have been found any wrong acts by Freemasons. I believe that most people were misled into believing that the Enquiry had gone into some greater depth and that it had vindicated Freemasonry within those public services.
I now have a severe problem with rheumatoid arthritis and this has caused me some problems preparing files for both your attention and for the attention of others. I have though kept the Hon. Lord Nolan informed. He has now returned back to being a member of the Law Lords and has written to me to say that he now must remain impartial in these matters. Late last year threats were made that my home would be burnt down unless I withdrew from trying to expose Freemasonry.
I believe that these two affidavits show that at the very least the former Recorder Mr Fryer-Spedding had not told the truth when giving judgement. His acts during the proceedings before him were equally despicable. When the trial before him was concluded I reported some of his acts to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay. Mr Fryer Spedding went into what was certainly sudden retirement around that same time. There are facts to back my allegation that his retirement was indeed "sudden". The former Recorder ruled that I was to pay five sixths of all costs of proceedings. I have decided by reason of the documents that I supply here, and by further documentation that I am preparing for your examination that I will never pay any of the costs. I have already paid out well in excess of two thousand pounds to my opponent and the estimated final costs after taxation are around twelve thousand pounds. Taxation is due to take place at the Durham County Court on October 28 before District Judge Jones. As a further departure from usual practice the taxation of the Bill of Costs is to be held in open court. I believe if it can be shown that a judge has told even one lie then his judgement must be held to question. These affidavits which I supply for your examination show among other things more than one lie.
When I approached the Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham on the matter of my concerns, they ruled that it should be left to the individual judge whether or not to declare membership of Freemasonry. I believe their ruling was grossly wrong. The question arises as to whether Lord Woolf or Lord Bingham are themselves Freemasons? I think it right that before they themselves make such rulings concerning Freemasonry, they should declare any such membership of that organisation. I think it also right that if either or both of them are Freemasons then their ruling can be considered to be a conflict of interests. I am to write to them to ask that they confirm or deny any such membership of Freemasonry. Lord Justice Auld and Pill refused me leave to appeal the former Recorders judgement. There are matters appertaining to that of which I shall expand upon later with regard to my application for leave to appeal. I will be writing now also to these two additional Lords Justices to ask for their confirmation or denial that they are Freemasons.
I am now also being charged under the new harassment laws, which came into force in July of 1997. My wife and I saw my civil opponent out with her boyfriend shopping. It was on a Wednesday afternoon in July of 1997 and it was reasonable to presume that she may have been in breach of her employment as a National Insurance Inspector. I reported that matter in to her employer The Contributions Agency at Newcastle. Shortly afterwards I was arrested and detained at Gillbridge Avenue Police Station Sunderland. I was told that by reporting that matter it came under the new law of harassment. Later it was alleged that I had approached my opponent in the Sunderland County Court and threatened further harassment of her. That was fabricated and there are witnesses available to show that, one includes a security man at the court. Police most certainly will know by now that the second allegation was without substance. The Crown Prosecution Service has employed Counsel against me and the trial on this matter is now being estimated to last some days. According to my solicitor the CPS have done this to try to find out just how far they can go with the new harassment law? I have written to my solicitor, who admits to being a Freemason, as most are in my home area, that I require all involved in my prosecution and defence to declare any membership of Freemasonry. I include that the Chief Constable of Northumbria and the Clerk to the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court, be included.
I have Christian beliefs and am a member of a church. It is I firmly believe my right that any cases against me should equally be heard before a court with similar Christian beliefs. Freemasonry is without doubt the opposite of Christianity. I do not know of any church, which regards Freemasons as Christians. Regardless of views upon this, there still remains the matter of conflict of interests. I have been informed by another fellow member of Hetton-le-Hole Town Council, who describes himself as a Master Freemason that I am subject of discussion in Masonic Halls and that they would not allow me to do what I have been doing. He said they regarded my actions against Freemasonry as being an invasion of their privacy. I enclose a copy of my recent letter to my solicitor, which will help indicate other matters that require investigation. One being of my assault in Hetton-le-Hole Town Council Chambers after a fellow Councillor, a Freemason, failed to declare that he owned land which came under the City of Sunderland Unitary Development Plan. Three other members of his family, all Councillors also failed to declare such interest. Two of them spoke in favour at the meeting of the Council in favour of the proposed housing plans. I reported that matter to Washington Police Station. Superintendent Williams of Washington Police later said as he did not think that the rest of the Councillors would say what they had seen of my assault no action was therefore to be taken. I had been locked in the Council Chambers and then assaulted by three members of that Councillor family.
Shortly after that incident I along with another two Councillors raised the matter of the use of a quarry at Easington Lane, Tyne-Wear. Around a week or so later the quarry owner called at my home and assaulted me. He had warned to keep quiet about his quarry. His assault upon me took place after I said that I could not do that. When police arrived the quarry owner remained at the scene. They radioed for an ambulance when it was thought that one of my ankles was broken and my left knee was badly dented. I spent half a day in hospital. I was told that the main ankle joint was not broken but that it was likely that some smaller bones in the ankle were fractured. Some weeks after that assault upon me I contacted Washington Police to ascertain what was happening about the matter. I was told that the quarry owner had not even been interviewed. Shortly afterwards a policeman called at my home to say that no action was to be taken by police on that matter either. He asked if I still intended to continue as a member of the Hetton-le-Hole Town Council to which I replied that it remained as my intention to do that.
In January of 1997 seven hundred pounds worth of damage was caused to my property following the pursuit of a stolen car by both Northumbria and Durham Police Forces. When I first approached Washington Police it was confirmed that the vehicle had been subject of pursuit by both Northumbria and Durham Police forces and had been logged as incident No. 0055. Later it was denied that the vehicle had been subject of police pursuit. The circumstances had certainly indicated that police had been pursuing that vehicle. Eventually I obtained the name and address of the stolen vehicle's owner, a Mr Anderson of Winnslonnen Estate, Murton, County Durham. I contacted him by telephone. He told me that police had given him a full and detailed account of their pursuit of his car. He said that police had seen his vehicle come out of his estate without showing its lights. They gave chase but as the roads were icy they were not prepared to risk driving at the high speeds at which the stolen vehicle was being driven. There was little doubt that Mr Anderson was telling me the truth and that it was the police who were not telling the truth. I indicated in my subsequent letters to both respective Chief Constables that I believed it was possibly yet another act against me influenced by Freemasons. No compensation was therefore available as police denied any liability for their part in the damage to my property.
In additional documentation, which I am preparing for your examination, I will show that the actions against me by the northern area Legal Aid Board were again improper. The Parliamentary Commissioner has agreed to look at the evidence to support this allegation. Much of the available evidence had been supplied to former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay who indicated that I could make an approach to the Parliamentary Commissioner on that matter. I have not supplied the documentation to the Commissioner. I have got so used to having doors shut in my face that I have lost faith in the various establishments that I have approached. I believe that in any event I am now out of time to report this matter. I will send the documents to you regarding this matter when they are prepared. Six weeks before the trial before the former Recorder Mr Fryer Spedding legal aid was withdrawn from me. I was then left without complete files, as my solicitors needed them for costing purposes. I went into that court representing myself not only without complete files, but my opponent had employed Counsel both in her own defence and prosecution. I believe that it was Lord Justice Auld who said that some of the Recorders acts might have been attributable to his familiarity with Counsel for my opponent, Mr. Merritt. I ask that you give all due consideration to these two affidavits which show the former Recorder did carry out some of the things of which I allege. At the moment the rear garden of my property which comprises of various buildings and an area extending to almost a quarter of an acre can only be serviced by route through the living room of my home. This situation has been brought about by the former Recorders actions. He had agreed that my opponent's property, and a strip of land subject of dispute had comprised as the right of way to the rear of my property. He said that as my parents had not reserved that right in the title of my opponents property when they sold it to a predecessors in title to my opponent in 1982, then that right came to an end on that conveyance. It is certain that the former Recorder would have been fully aware of Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 which protected that right of way. Despite that he made the statement of which I refer. I will be supplying to you an approved transcript of his Judgement where this statement is included. By virtue of Section 62 of the 1925 Act I could not have been a trespasser on the disputed land as was alleged by my opponent. The Recorder stated his opinion, which is included in his approved transcript of judgement, that my opponent had no title to the disputed land. He said that it was likely that my father had gained title to that land. There is little doubt that he had title to the land. My father commenced action to go back into possession of the land and it was District Judge Cuthbertson who ruled that it was an abuse of court time for him to commence that action. His actions had already been improper following him having granted an injunction on 17th October 1995 at Durham County Court after proceedings had been adjourned. I was not given notice of the restored hearing. The injunction was very effectively meant to stop me from taking further evidence for use in my actions and defence. My appeal against the improper way in which he granted that injunction was heard again by him. He refused my appeal. I was told later that the reason for matter going again before him rather than a circuit judge was that I had not used the correct form on which to lodge my appeal. The form used was the same one which had been supplied by The Durham County Court when requested for a form on which to lodge the appeal. There followed months of substantial intimidation of both my wife and I in attempts to have me breach that injunction so granted by District Judge Cuthbertson, where we had called for police attendance on occasions. I was eventually found guilty of breaching that injunction on 5th July 1996. I was sentenced to three months imprisonment at Durham. There I refused all food, drink, and essential medication in protest at what was none other than gross injustice right from the start of the civil litigation. After three days I had a stroke and found myself chained to a bed at Dryburn Hospital in Durham City. I was released the following day on appeal to the London Court of Appeal.
There is still a huge amount to add regarding things that were carried out against me. I shall include this if and when it becomes necessary. One was an order that was granted allowing me to go to a solicitor's office to take copies from my files being withheld there. When the order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips was breached he alleged it had not been an order of the court but had only been done by consent of the solicitor concerned. That was untrue. The solicitor concerned, Nancy Bone of Durham was closed down by the intervention of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors last year. She was then struck off the register. I was then able to obtain the files that had been withheld by that firm. In the files the solicitor Nancy Bone wrote in documents referring to "the Order of the Court" that I be allowed to go to her offices to take copies from my files. Other files, which belonged to me, went missing from Smith and Graham Solicitors of Durham. They wrote to say that despite extensive searches they had been unable to find those files. They would have been very beneficial to my actions. Another solicitor, Mr Paul Graney had sworn false information in his Statutory Declaration that was of relevance to the cases. When confronted with evidence to show that he swore an affidavit retracting that false information. They were placed in quadruple before the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding who afterwards effectively alleged that he had not seen them.
I will hopefully be able to more fully detail some of these other matters later. For the moment I would ask that consideration be given as to whether you believe that I should be bound by the judgement of a man who carried out the acts of which I complain, and some of which are alone proved by my affidavits and exhibits enclosed. I am resolved to stand my ground. It is bad enough receiving injustice, but to be ordered to pay such a sum of money for it is more than I can accept under any circumstances. The Judiciary are independent of Government and I believe therefore that its own house should be fully clean and above reproach. This is not the situation. Incidentally, the solicitor who acted I believe for the "Guildford Four", Mr Michael Fisher, stated on National Radio that "the London Court of Appeal is perceived to be riddled with Freemasonry". I believe that perception is fully justified following my talks with various members of staff there on June 6th 1997. Rather than give way sir, I am prepared now to forfeit my life rather than allow what I have often termed our Masonic infested Judicial system to work not for justice for which they are employed, but injustice when it is decided that is to be the outcome.
Yours sincerely
Mr. M.Kellett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Secretary, 16A The Lyons,
The Rt. Hon J. Straw, Hetton-le-Hole,
House of Commons, Tyne-Wear,
London. DH5 OHT.
20th October 1998
Dear Sir,
There are four enclosures with this letter. One is my recent letter to you dated September 29 1998. The others are:
1. In April of 1994 my opponent applied to the Durham County Court for consolidation of my actions under case numbers DH400950 and DH400898 with her action under NE401650. On June 1st 1994 the Durham County Court refused the application and it was ordered that they could not be consolidated..
2. A copy of a letter which I received from my opponents solicitor after I had found considerable amounts of documentation missing from the bundle which had been provided to me. In this letter from Alison Stott Solicitor it is agreed that my opponent prepared the judges bundle herself. She had not been given the authority of the court to that. The copy of the order in 1. Above was not made available to me until quite recently. A former solicitor, Nancy Bone of Durham City was recently closed down and she was struck off the register. This solicitor had withheld all of my files for most of the first year of litigation. In those files was the order of the court refusing consolidation of the cases. It was not made available to me for use in an application for leave to appeal which was refused by Lord Justice Pill and Auld. Only quite recently following the return of my files by the Office of The Supervision of Solicitors has it been possible for me to show by means of the copy of this order of 1st June 1994 that such order had been made. My opponent Miss S. Carr, as is shown by the letter received from Alison Stott Solicitor, prepared the Judges bundle. In July of 1997 she agreed to myself and my wife that she had deliberately excluded the order of 1st June 1994 from the Judges bundle along with other documentation.. Her admission was subject of a tape recording which is available should it be required.
3. This is a copy of the first page of the Judgement of a former recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding. It is shown that he tried the case as a consolidated action. I had prepared my cases and defence believing that they were to be tried one after the other. The fact that the Recorder tried them as if consolidated was extremely prejudicial to me.
On Friday 17th October I telephoned the Home Office to enquire as to the progress or otherwise of my approach to you with the two affidavits of 13th August 1997 and 4th November 1997. I spoke with three people and each said that they knew nothing about the whereabouts of my letter with these and other enclosures to you.
At this time of writing I am awaiting the application for my committal to prison following an allegation that I have not carried out part of the former Recorders Order. The affidavits which I sent to the Home Office for your possible examination clearly show that the former Recorders acts of not telling the truth, concocting false stories, allowing my opponent to use perjury, and other acts in defiance of commonly accepted principles of justice were not mistakes but I believe were clearly meant to pervert the course of justice. One police officer has also expressed that opinion. I also enclosed in the documentation which I sent to you, copies of letters that I received from the Rt Hon. The Lord Nolan following his receipt of files which I sent to him. In May of 1996 I was thanked by letter for a dossier which I supplied to the Honourable Lord which I understand was to be used as background material for the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. This sir is the reason that I believe these acts of injustice have been carried out against me. It became common knowledge locally that I had supplied the Hon. Lord Nolan with that material.
I would add that The Lord Chancellor, the Rt. Hon. Lord Irvine has been provided with the documentation that I have provided to you but no action to right matters has stemmed from it.
I have to say that while it may not be in the public interest to show that a former Recorder was capable of carrying out the acts which he did against me, and that it must be difficult for the Judiciary to agree that one of their number did carry this out, the truth will, one way or another, be made public eventually. I am determined that it will.
I request that you give the matters that I report to you your full consideration at your earliest convenience because I cannot accept that in the circumstances of the facts in the documents which I provide to you, has there been anything remotely attached to justice in these matters.
Yours faithfully
Mr. M. Kellett
---------------------
Up to the present date of January 28 1999 no reply or acknowledgement has been received to these two letters from the British Home Secretary or his department. Recently I learned that these matters had been passed to The Court Service who are not empowered to deal with them. They wrote to say that they were to file the complaint. They may as well have written to say they had used my documentation to light the fire.
----------------------
Any E-Mail please to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk