Jackson agreed that he is a mason and belonged to what he described as a judicial lodge. There is doubt in my mind whatsoever that he was not working for me but against me. he did not reply to my letter copied below. Counsel Harle, who was engaged by Jackson, who denied being a mason was equally not working for me. When I last saw him at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court his face changed colour and he mad a hasty retreat down the court corridor. Could it be that the man has a conscience? My wife Joyce Kellett, later agreed that the questions Harle had put to her while she was in the witness box had no relevance whatsoever and that it had not been worth her time in travelling from near Harrogate to attend the court. I do not refer to her as my ex wife because she used fraud to obtain our divorce. Under a ruling made by the late Lord Denning, no order of any court can stand if fraud has been used to obtain it. This matter will be addressed when the UK courts are brought under the rule of law and are freed from the cancer of Freemasonry. More will be published about this matter later.
Malcolm Smith & Co.Solicitors, 16A The Lyons,
Bank Chambers, Hetton-le-Hole,
Blackhills Rd. Tyne-Wear,
Horden, DH5 OHT.
21 September 1998
Your Ref: ANJ.5073.I
Dear Mr Jackson
I thank you for your letter of 15th September and I reply to it herein.
You write that you are loath to apply for legal aid to expend money for the provision of video equipment to be used in court. I am sure Mr. Jackson that such expenditure will be minimal in respect of the overall costs involved in this matter?
You state your opinion that you do not think that the video evidence which has been made available would not be to my advantage. I do fail to agree with you on this matter. In these circumstances I must insist that the video evidence be submitted in the proceedings whether or not legal aid is made available to enable a television and a video recorder to be installed in the court. Failing such funding, I will make the necessary arrangements myself.
Before I came to your firm I consulted with a firm of solicitors at Washington, Tyne-Wear. It was their view that everything should be used in such proceedings dating back to the time I was assaulted and struck by a car some twelve years or so ago. As you will recall I gave you an account of that matter. The proceedings before the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court of that time concerning that were most certainly improper and the man that carried out the assault upon me walked free from that court while his acquaintance, Magistrate Mr. William Moseley, Freemason, remained on the bench while we went before the court. As it was confirmed later, Mr. Moseley alleged that he had stood down at those proceedings although he had remained on the magistrate's bench. The remaining magistrate was required by law to be a Stipendiary Magistrate and there is no doubt whatsoever that he did not hold that qualification. The Clerk to the Justices at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court claimed then that he had not been able to ascertain whether that remaining magistrate held such qualification because he said that he was not available as he was on holiday. The Clerk of the Justices of that time is still the present Clerk of today, and I am in no doubts whatsoever, and was advised by someone more knowledgeable than I that the Clerk to the Justices would not have needed to contact that magistrate in order to find out if he had such qualifications to fulfil the requirement of law to be referred to as Stipendiary Magistrate. It is certain the Clerk to the Justices would have had prior documentary knowledge that the magistrate of which I refer did not hold such a qualification.
The advice of the solicitor with whom I saw at Washington said that he thought that matter along with many others in the proceeding years should be used in my defence. He said that as he was well acquainted with someone who I had named in respect of improper conduct he could not therefore represent me. That is why I found my way to your firm Mr. Jackson. You may recall at the outset that the case was regarded as somewhat petty but then you said that that the Crown Prosecution Service had decided to employ Counsel against me. The allegations are of course that following my wife and I having seen my neighbour, Miss Carr, and her boyfriend shopping at a store in Ryhope on a Wednesday afternoon in July of 1997 I reported that to Miss Carr's employer, the Department of Health and Social Security Contributions Agency at Longbenton, Newcastle. I have of course not denied that. As you know Miss Carr has been my opponent in civil litigation for four years. Miss Carr had of course also confirmed to the Civil Courts that she was a full time employee of the Contributions Agency as a National Insurance Inspector. It was reasonable therefore to presume that a full time employee of the Agency would not normally be out shopping with her boyfriend on a Wednesday afternoon. There were indeed many such days where Miss Carr went out with her boyfriend on a Wednesday Afternoon. On this particular day in July of last year there was evidence to support that she was at that store shopping with her boyfriend whereas previously she had denied in the civil proceedings that she had been doing such things. There is a question here as to whether a member of the public or another public servant such as myself has the right to report such matters when there are reasonable grounds to presume that a full time employee of the DSS should not be out shopping with her boyfriend at that time. I remind you, as I also reminded Mr Harle, at every DSS Office in this Country there is a telephone number posted up for people to use should they suspect a member of the public who being in receipt of public benefit but might also be obtaining other income by failing to declare any paid work. People can use that telephone number either for justified reasons or in the alternative for malicious purposes. Is this a case of one way traffic Mr Jackson? The public can report matters of concern about the public, but the public can not report such concerns about a public servant? I will not under any circumstances accept the latter as being in the best public interest.
The further allegation made by Miss Carr to police was that I had approached her in Sunderland County Court and had threatened further harassment of her. That I flatly deny and there are of course witnesses to back that up. When we last spoke you said that my wife might now be regarded as "a hostile witness" following that which has taken place between her and I. I am prepared to put that to the test Mr Jackson, hostile or not.
You will also be aware by your receipt of documents from me that the trial judge in those civil matters, former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding did lie, concoct false stories, and as I have sworn, that he also openly allowed perjury by Miss Carr so as to have reasons to rule against me. I don't think that you will disagree that the evidence which I have supplied to you proves most of these facts beyond any doubt whatsoever. The video film, which I supplied to you also, shows the former Recorders apparent determination to fabricate reasons to justify ruling against me. But possibly of more relevance, that video evidence also shows that Miss Carr was more than capable of committing perjury and that the former Recorder most certainly allowed that.
My character is the subject material of the planned trial Mr Jackson. By means of the evidence which is available, of which the video evidence is, and remains substantive, I can show that Miss Carr's character is more open to question and scrutiny than my own. Whether or not Miss Carr's actions of perjury etc. came about before the new laws of harassment came into force last July is not, I believe of relevance. Any evidence, which can be put before the court to show that Miss Carr was perfectly willing to swear lies in the civil litigation between us, is I cannot think otherwise, but be of great value in the allegations that she has made against me. As Miss Carr is the Chief witness of the action against me by Northumbria Police, her own character as a witness obviously has to come under scrutiny. Without this process and all available evidence being shown to the court that helps illustrate Miss Carr's character, then injustice is the likely outcome. There has been far too much injustice done to me and indeed my wife already Mr Jackson by a Judicial System so infested with membership of Freemasonry.
I recall you telling me some months ago that to produce the video evidence which I used in the civil actions showing that both Miss Carr and the former Recorder had both lied in those proceedings (my allegations) that to use such video evidence would only as you said, "invoke the wrath of the Court". Perhaps Mr Jackson its time to consider my own wrath at such gross injustice which has and continues to be thrown at me. Lets let the general public see the evidence and let them decide whose wrath is most justified? You said that the court had the power to clear the public from it if it considered certain evidence should not be shown to the public. If that were to be the situation I would make sure in such circumstances that it would be made available to the public media anyway outside of the court.
Effectively by his acts, the former Recorder was an accomplice of Miss Carr's by carrying out such acts against me by allowing Miss Carr to use such perjury. Perhaps it may be possible to have him brought before the courts to explain the reasons behind his acts? Going into retirement when I reported some of his acts to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord McKay was I think the most honourable thing that he could have done.
After careful consideration I must insist that any video evidence which helps show that Miss Carr's character is highly open to question, must therefore enter into proceedings along with any other evidence by way of documentation which will also help shed some light onto her true character.
In addition, I have now decided that as I did supply, and was thanked by the Rt. Hon. Lord Nolan for a dossier that I supplied to him in May 1996, which was used by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary, then this sphere of things should also enter into proceedings. I will therefore require that all involved in my prosecution, and defence, should therefore declare any membership of Freemasonry. Of particular importance owing to his seniority of power, the Chief Constable of Northumbria is also required to declare any such membership of Freemasonry. Before I was arrested on the allegations of harassment he was aware that I had supplied Lord Nolan with a dossier. I think too it would be beneficial for reasons of Justice that the Clerk to the Justices at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court should also be required to submit any such membership of Freemasonry. I realise that this is not of course normal procedure but as there have been many things which I consider were and have not been "normal" I must insist that these declarations must be made in the interests of public justice.
The situation of the Chief Constables awareness of the dossier I supplied to the Honourable Lord came about following substantial damage to my property following the pursuit of a stolen car by both Northumbria and Durham Police forces in January of 1997. Northumbria Police at first agreed that there had been a joint pursuit by both police forces of that vehicle. Later it was wrongly alleged by both police forces that they had not been in pursuit of the stolen car but had only been following it. The owner of the stolen vehicle confirmed to me that Durham Police had given him an account of their pursuit of his vehicle. This too may of extreme relevance to my defence. The damage that was caused has not been put right, as I did not have the finances to have the repairs carried out. I will require all police officers involved in the lead up to the case against me to formally declare any membership past or present of the Freemasons. I will also reserve the right to submit any evidence that I may have should it be shown that anyone has falsely declared to not being a Freemason. I do appreciate, and thank you for the fact Mr. Jackson that you have already declared that you are a member of the Freemasons. Incidentally I don't think I have supplied you with any material concerning the damage to my property during that police pursuit of the stolen car in January of 1997. It is available should it be required.
There are additional matters concerning the conduct of Northumbria police. One was the matter of my assault in Hetton-le-Hole Council Chambers around some two and a half years ago when I as a member of that Council, declared an interest on behalf of another Councillor, a Freemason, who along with members of his family who were and remain as Councillors, failed to declare an interest in land owed by that Freemason Councillor which came under the City of Sunderland Unitary Development Plan for proposed housing. Police at that time (Superintendant Williams) decided that as they did not think that the rest of the Councillors would say what they had seen of my assault, no action was to be taken on that matter. I did not accept that situation as justice then any more than I do now.
Shortly after that time, I along with two other Hetton Town Councillors raised questions about the use of a quarry at Easington Lane. The quarry owner called at my home, and carried out a criminal assault on me. He remained at the scene when police arrived. They summoned an ambulance when they saw my injuries. I spent half a day in hospital. The quarry owner was not even interviewed about his assault upon me until many weeks afterwards and that only came about when I made enquiries to Northumbria Police as to what was happening with regard to the incident. I was then told that no action was to be taken against the owner of the quarry. I was asked though, by one of the police officers involved in that matter, if I still intended to continue to be a member of Hetton-le-Hole, Town Council. My reply to him was that I was more determined than ever to remain as a Councillor.
As Northumbria Police is now conducting the actions against me, then my opinion is that they too should be called to account for these latter three incidences. You are of course aware that there were other incidences concerning Northumbria Police, which were included as subject material in the dossier of which I supplied to the Hon. Lord Nolan.
It would seem to me from your letter that you believe that a trial date has been set but that is not the position as I saw it while I attended court. Mr Harle was surprised as he said, to see me attend Court and said there was no necessity for me to enter the courtroom while he conducted matters, but I insisted that I do that so that is how I can verify that the trial dates have not been set. There is to be another pre trial review on I believe the 28th of this month. Trial dates of 2nd 3rd and 4th November had been given but following Mr Harle having whispered something to the solicitor for the Crown Prosecution he, the Crown Prosecutor then agreed to a further pre trial review.
Mr. M. Kellett
Mr. Jackson, 16A The Lyons,
Malcolm Smith & CO. Solicitors, Hetton-le-Hole,
Bank Chambers, Tyne-Wear,
Horden, DH5 OHT.
November 9 1998 Your Ref: ANJ/TW/5073.1
Dear Mr Jackson
I am in receipt of your letter that is dated 4th November. You write that you have found it impossible to obtain the approval of the legal aid board to instruct a company to provide the video equipment for the trial. You further write that in the circumstances you must have from me authority to pay the £80 myself as the company will look to you initially to pay the same.
I take it that at the moment you do not require from me the £80 fee? Presently I have had several large bills to pay so due to this I do not readily have that sum of money at hand. I should be in a position to pay that sum around the time of the trial. When we last talked you said that you were to obtain two estimates for the cost of providing and installing the equipment, I would be grateful if you could provide me with the copies of these estimates.
I also urgently request copies of your application and subsequent reasons for the legal aid boards refusal to fund what is without doubt equipment that is vital for my defence. This is only one in a string of incidences where the decision of the legal aid board is again called into question. The first such question arose at the outcome of litigation between Miss Carr and ourselves. The legal aid board refused legal aid on the grounds that there was already an injunction in place to prevent Miss Carr's property from draining onto ours. In fact the application for legal aid was for help in trying to obtain such injunction. I attended at the appeal and believe that I made it perfectly clear that the application for legal aid was for the purpose of obtaining such injunction. The appeal was refused. Over a year later legal aid was granted in respect of the three actions between Miss Carr and I.
Six weeks or so before the trial legal aid was withdrawn from me. The trial, should have been "trials" as Miss Carr agrees that when she prepared the judges bundle ready for the trials, she deliberately left out her application and subsequent order made on 1st June 1994 by The Durham County Court. The order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips was that the cases could not be consolidated. That order obviously stood at the time of the trial as Miss Carr did not appeal the June 1st Order. Mr Fryer Spedding therefore tried the actions as if they had been consolidated under case number NE401650 which was Miss Carr's single action against me. I had prepared my defence and cases as if they were to be tried one after the other. To make matters even more difficult my former solicitors, Jacksons of Darlington would not release my files to me as they said that they required them for costing purpose. I am sure that you will agree that this situation was not in the interests of justice. Miss Carr was of course represented by Counsel and the scales were thus further tipped against me.
The relevance to the legal aid boards recent decision is as follows.
Nancy Bone Solicitors were closed down and she was struck from the register by the Office for The Supervision of Solicitors last year. Nancy Bone had held by lien all of the files on the cases covering around the first nine months of the litigation between Miss Carr and I. Following the closure of Nancy Bone Solicitors late last year, it became possible for the return to me of my files that Nancy Bone had withheld. In the files was the copy of the application for legal aid that Nancy Bone Solicitors had made for me in 1994. The application for legal aid made it perfectly clear why legal aid was being requested. Indeed the application made to the legal aid board stated "Application for injunction" relative to the drainage problem coming from Miss Carr's property. There was absolutely nothing in that application which could have led the legal aid board to believe that an injunction preventing that drainage was already in place. This has been agreed by those who have examined the documentation relative to that first application for legal aid in 1994.
Once I obtained my documentation back from Nancy Bone Solicitors, I was then came into possession of a copy of the order refusing consolidation of the cases made by District Judge Scott Phillips at The Durham County Court on 1st June 1994. I had not had a copy of that order when I requested leave to appeal which was subsequent refused by Lord justices Pill and Auld in the London Court of Appeal.
When legal aid was granted in respect of all three cases in February of 1996 it was then withdrawn in September of 1996. It was withdrawn giving reason that Counsels opinion was that my cases and defence against Miss Carr's action were not good. That again was very untrue. My solicitor at that time, Mrs. Tench, also agreed that and has indicated it by letter. Counsels opinion in respect of my cases and defence, which is available and will be in the files that have been provided to you, gave my chances as being good with regard to my actions and defence in those three cases. Being so close to the trials date that action by the legal aid board is again called into question.
In Miss Carr's recent application for my committal to prison the legal aid board again refused me legal aid. She had of course as you know alleged that I had not complied with carrying out part of the order made by the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding on 24th October 1996. That order effectively allows flooding of 16A The Lyons from a property which has no drainage facilities fitted to the rear of it. In my affidavits of 8th August and 4th November 1997, of which you have been provided with copies, it is shown by evidence provided in them, that the judge, former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding had along with Miss Carr, at the very least lied. In addition it is further shown by means of the video film and the affidavits that are attached with it, again copies of which have been provided to you, that not only had Mr. Fryer Spedding lied, concocted false stories, made at least one statement while giving judgement very contrary to law, but that Miss Carr had also blatantly lied in her affidavits. The solicitor who I approached to act in my defence of this latest application by Miss Carr for my further committal to prison, was in receipt of almost all of this material but excluding the video film evidence. Still the legal aid board would not grant legal aid for my defence against Miss Carr's action to have me committed to prison.
The video film that I have provided to you shows that not only did Mr Fryer Spedding lie, but that he had also allowed Miss Carr to do that as well in her affidavits and had assisted it by making statements very contrary to that which is shown on the video film evidence that was shown to him. To deliberately lie in statements made in an affidavit is clear perjury as you well know. It is shown by documentary and video evidence provided to you that Miss Carr most certainly did that quite liberally in her affidavits. As Miss Carr is the Crowns chief prosecution witness, it is therefore surely vital that the evidence that is available to show her perjury should be made available to the magistrates court. Again with reference to your remark to me of some months ago that to show that Mr Fryer Spedding had lied would "invoke the wrath of the court" it is truth which should prevail as the very foundation of justice? Without truth, and the covering up of it, justice surely becomes nothing short of a farce. Therefore by not showing the truth of what is seen on the video film evidence that was shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding, proving at least one aspect of his lies and evidence of Miss Carr's perjury along with is considered Mr Fryer Spedding's furtherance and assistance of it, this would not serve the true interests of justice. It is in these latter circumstances that it has to be made known to me as to the reasons the legal aid board have refused the sum of £80 for me to be able to show video film proof of not only Miss Carr's perjury and Mr Fryer Spedding,s furtherance and allowance of it. Can I presume that there is the right of appeal in such cases of legal aid refusal and if so is this being considered? In consideration of the overall costs involved £80 must remain as a poultry sum?
At this time I also wish you to know that my medical condition has further deteriorated. My wrists and fingers have recently became very badly affected with rheumatiod arthritis. It has led to considerable further difficulties with my being able to maintain my own being and with mobility. I doubt very much whether this will allow my attendance at court on 25th November. I will of course need to be able to provide medical opinion in respect of this nearer to the trial date. I must make it clear now that I will not be manhandled into court as has been indicated to me. I was told that I may have to be carried up the stairs of the Washington Magistrates Court.
I have still not received a reply from you to my letter of 21st October 1998. In that letter I raised my concerns and my requirements regarding declaration of membership of Freemasonry. Those concerns are still foremost in my mind. I reference my rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, resolution 217A(III) of 10th December 1948 and a similar resolution under the European Human Rights Declaration.
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law"," is one such declaration included in the United Nations declaration. Others are:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"."everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law".
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
"Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law".
"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."
By virtue of the latter Declaration, and by virtue of my public attempts to expose what I believe to be corrupt elements of Freemasonry, and my publicly known contribution which I made to the House of Common Home affairs Select Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary, I therefore require that all involved in my prosecution and defence shall declare any such membership of Freemasonry. I Greatly respect your own action of divulging your membership of Freemasonry to me.
My wife and I had been together for thirty years and when she saw that I had indeed been subject of oppression and tyranny in the four year civil actions she begged me to run away from it. When I did not do that she was left with little alternative but to make that run herself. We were both tortured considerably by that oppression and tyranny. When judges carry out such actions as the former recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding, District Judge Cuthbertson , and indeed Miss Carr, then clearly the rights of both my wife and I were clearly grossly breached. A judge who lies, concocts false stories, and openly allows and assists perjury by any litigant before him is clearly breaching the rights of the fellow litigant before him. The Oxford dictionary describes "tryranny" as referenced in the Human Rights Declaration as, "the cruel and arbitrary use of authority". Certainly by carrying out the acts that he is shown as carrying out against me., Mr. Fryer Spedding has contravened my rights and has carried out oppression. In these circumstances I require the observance of my rights under The United Nations Human Rights Declaration, and the European Charter of Human Rights to be fully observed at all times. I further require that as part of my rights that the clear breaches of my rights by the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding be shown as part of my defence in the Crown versus myself. By carrying out such acts against me the former Recorder most certainly deliberately assisted Miss Carr and that has to be shown to the magistrates.
I have rights under Human Rights agreed by Government. They are not just rights written down but have actions attached to them. Unless strict observance of my rights are observed, I will have little choice but to defend against them by any means, as the declaration says, "as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression". The acts of both Miss Carr and Mr Fryer Spedding must be shown to the court as part of my defence nothing short of this will satisfy the requirements of the commonly accepted principles of justice.
Mr M. Kellett
reply from Mr. Jackson dated 9th November 1998
Dear Mr. Kellett,
Thank you for your letter of the 9th November. I have spoken to counsel Mr. Harle and he is firmly of the opinion that the video should not be used. He also takes the view that your wife would not assist. If you wish to fly in the face of his advice then neither counsel nor I can be responsible. I need to justify to the Legal Aid Board the expence of serving your wife with a witness order. I have to personally give her money to get to court from Harrogate by public transport and if the Legal Aid Board do not consider the costs are justified I am personally liable. The Legal Aid Board took the view that the provision of the equipment was not something that could be approved. It can be appealed but the cost of doing so cannot be justified given counsel and my view of the evidence.
If you can pay for the equipment then I must ask you to do so before I instruct the firm to install the same.
Mr A. N. Jackson.
The text highlighted in blue above relates to video film that shows further evidence of former Recorder John H.Fryer-Speddings High Treason along with Carr's further use of perjury which Spedding allowed and added to.
In a telephone conversation with Mr. Jackson late this afternoon, he implied that my wife might not tell the truth while giving evidence, so he and Mr Harle did not think she would make a good witness? My wife was to have been my principle witness. Mr Jackson was clearly unhappy that I insisted that he serve my wife with the necessary document to have her appear in court as my witness. After further heated argument, Mr Jackson agreed to supply me with the letters to and from the legal aid board in respect of their refusal to fund the sum of £80 for the video equipment to be installed in court. At this late hour I was even asked by Mr Jackson if my wife accompanied me at the time the allegation of harassment allegation. He has had the care of the case for more than eight months! I also told him that I required that all involved both in prosecution and defence to declare any membership of Freemasonry. He said that he did not think they would agree to that. I said that under my rights as given in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights on December 10th 1948 I demanded it. The trial has to be heard before and independent tribunal.
I wrote Mr. Jackson a further letter dated 1st December 1998. He has not replied to it up to the present date of 25th February 1999. Mr Jackson has also not provided me with the documents relative to his alleged application to The Legal Aid Board in respect of the installation of video equipment. He still holds my files which I shall require for use in my appeal where the evidence showing Miss Carr's perjury and former Recorder Fryer-Spedding lies, etc. will be shown. He implied that my appeal will not succeed because it will be held at Newcastle Crown Court which is within the building where Mr. John Fryer-Spedding sat.
Present date 24 April 1999. Still no reply received from Mason solicitor Jackson to my letter of 1st December 1998.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places"
From the Holy Bible, Ephesians C6 v12, by Paul, one of the good guys.
The above applies today at least as much as in all the years since Paul wrote the above text.
Any E-mail please to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk
Back to opening page.
Back to page index