|
|
The Chief Clerk, 16A The Lyons,
Durham County Court, Hetton-le-Hole,
Hallgarth Street, Tyne-Wear,
Durham. DH5 OHT.
Date: October 19 1995.
Our Ref : MK/JC/J1
Case Number DH4 00950
RE HEARING DURHAM COUNTY COURT 2pm OCTOBER 17 1995.
Dear Sir,
I enclose a copy of a letter received from Ms. Alison Stott the solicitor acting for Shirley Carr. This letter was received by me this morning. Along with the letter was a copy of a general form of undertaking, I also enclose a copy of this. I draw your attention to paragraph one of the letter I received
from Ms. Stott.Ms. Stott seems to imply that it was necessary for me to remain in the Court on the afternoon of October 17, after the listed hearing was concluded.
We were before the Judge from shortly after 2pm until approximately 2.40pm. At the later time the Judge indicated his concern at the time being taken up when he said that he had other people waiting to see him. Because there was obviously limited time available to the Judge, and I believe that thirty minutes was the extent of the time allocated to that hearing. Other matters that were contained in my application for consideration by the judge were not discussed, save one, though not to any great extent, which was the subject of a gross defamatory statement sworn by Shirley Carr. The Judge advised that I should not proceed with litigation on this matter until the current litigation proceedings were resolved by the Court.
The Judge delegated to Ms. Stott the work of drafting the terms of the undertaking that he had decided as the alternative to the granting of the injunction that had been applied for. I expressed my concern at this during the final stage of the hearing. The Judge told Ms. Stott to draft the terms of the undertaking, whereupon she should then return it to him
for his consideration before agreeing to it.Returning to paragraph one of the letter from Ms. Stott, ref AMS/JF/C123.2, I am lead to believe that there was a requirement for me to remain at the Court while Ms. Stott drafted the terms of the said undertaking. Had this been the case, then at no time was it indicated to me that my presence at the Court was further required when I, and my wife left the Judge's Chamber. Indeed, because of the Judge's statement relative to his concern at the time that he had that afternoon, it would I believe have been inappropriate for myself to have attempted to take up more of the Judge's time. Though there was an apparent shortage of time by the Judge, it appears to me as though Shirley Carr, and her solicitor Ms. Stott may have made a further appearance before him on that afternoon. If my presence was required, as it seems to be indicated by Ms. Stott, then I should have been given notice of it. There was no notice or indication given to me by the Judge, or indeed by Ms. Stott.
I regarded the hearing that was listed for that afternoon as finished for that afternoon at the point where I, and the defence left the Judge's Chamber.
The terms of the order made by the Court, which is written on the copy of the form of undertaking supplied to me by Ms. Stott are unclear because of my inability to read the handwriting in full.
Though I am aware that the terms will be sent to me in typewritten form, I am also aware that this may be some days away. There is an indication that Ms. Stott has some awareness of apparent illegibility of the hand written form of the General Undertaking as she has drawn attention to the fact that I will receive a typewritten form of it.
At the hearing on Tuesday afternoon, I was made aware that Ms. Stott has been given the work of paginating the judges bundle of documents. I had not been made aware of this before that time. It was clear to me that Ms. Stott was as aware as myself that a date for the trials will shortly be set and that the listing for it will take place sooner rather than later as might be expected. This was indicated to me when I spoke with Judge Scott-Phillips last week. I am very concerned that Shirley Carr is aware of my continuing enquiries with reference to case numbers DH400950,DH400898, and NE401650. I am also aware that these enquiries may encompass matters of which Shirley Carr may regard as pestering or harassment. It is possible that this may have been the reason why Shirley Carr, or her solicitor made the application in the terms sought at such a late stage in proceedings. To have indicated to the Judge the enquiries that I still have underway in the above mentioned cases, would possibly be detrimental to the outcome of such enquiries. The enquiries presently underway are to help provide evidence of lies which have been stated under oath by Shirley Carr. To this end, I was unable to state the nature of enquiries being made by me as it would, I believe have been prejudicial to my cases.
As I may be at some risk if I continue with the enquiries, and I believe that Shirley Carr, and her solicitor are, and have became aware of at least some of them, there is the danger to me that another application by Shirley Carr for Contempt of Court may be the probable outcome should I continue with such enquiries. I believe the whole object of the latest application, is to hinder or stop the enquiries that are underway, and further enquiries that I need to make. Else why make this application so late in proceedings? When asked by the Judge as to why there was such an application so late in the day, Ms. Stott gave no reason other than they believed that they should have made the application earlier.
I realise that not having a solicitor to represent me causes some considerable problems relating to procedures and with legal terms etc, as I am equally aware that this also causes problems for the Judges in the matters. Ms. Stott is also well aware of this. If justice can have a reasonable chance of being obtained only by use of a solicitor, then I believe that justice itself within the Court is called into question.
Unfortunately, as I believe, the Judge at Tuesdays proceedings would not have had a full knowledge of the issues at hand in the other cases before the Court. Without such full knowledge, he would not have been aware of other matters, some of which were sworn as fact in the affidavit of October 3 1995 which Shirley Carr submitted in support of her application for the injunction. In Shirley Carr's latest application to the Court, she has made various sworn statements regarding not only my sanity, but my reputation is also called into question. So as to prove only some of these lies sworn in her latest affidavit, I will require to broaden enquiries that are already underway. This is my problem, should Shirley Carr decide that she regards this as "Pestering" or harassment, and these are words which are legible on the form that I have received, then I will find it impossible to proceed with my inquires into lies that have been sworn by Shirley Carr for fear of reprisal. "Pestering or harassing" are very broad terms indeed. I would suggest that so broad are the terms, that any enquiries that I need to make, and am making, which Shirley Carr can twist to suite her own ends for the purpose of implementing the terms of the undertaking, thus making me liable to yet another charge of Contempt of Court, may be extremely prejudicial to my cases. I am now not surprised by the highly delighted reaction of Ms. Stott when the Judge stated that she could draft the wording of the undertaking. She in fact thanked the Judge for his decision to allow her to do that.
I would agree that were there no further matters before the Court, then enquiries that I need to make may not be regarded as essential and might be regarded as "Pestering and Harassing", such is not the situation.
I cannot accept that enquiries that I am presently making, and will probably need to pursue in the light of Shirley Carr's latest affidavit of October 3, should be regarded by the Court as "Pestering or harassing" the Defendant. I believe that it is my right to pursue the truth or otherwise of any sworn statements made by Shirley Carr. To be restrained from doing this is unacceptable.
Given the facts, and if it was a requirement that I should have stayed at the Court on Tuesday afternoon, as is implied, then without such requirement being expressed, I was therefore unaware of such requirement. I was therefore not in a position to state my concerns over the wording of such an order. More especially, as I had protested to the Judge, when I believed such wording would be meant for the benefit of Shirley Carr. There is little doubt that the documentation that I have received from Shirley Carr's solicitor today is so that I may be restrained from making such enquiries as early as possible for the benefit of Shirley Carr.
A letter that I sent Ms. Stott dated 12 September referred to in the copy of my latest letter that I have received from her, has after this period time been given a reply of sorts within it.
The Judge stated twice at the end of the hearing that he would make no order as to costs. The Judge stated it twice as after his first statement regarding no order as to costs, Ms. Stott protested against this. He replied to her again that he would make no order as to costs. I believe that the Judge at Tuesday's proceedings was at a distinct disadvantage of not having dealt with the cases that are presently before the Court prior to this latest application by Shirley Carr. Judge Scott-Phillips is fully aware of the cases as he has dealt with almost all of the various hearings relative to them. He has indicated the complexity of the cases and has therefore decided that a Judge with Chancery experience is required.
Though I have a problem with the illegibility of his Hand writing, and I do not wish to imply any disrespect to the Judge on this, it would appear to me that there is included the hand written statement "Costs Reserved". If indeed this is written upon the General Form of Undertaking then it is contrary to the statements made by the Judge, and therefore I need to express this concern along with my other concerns to you.
Yours sincerely
Mr M. Kellett
(Plaintiff)
-------------------------------------
I lodged an appeal against Cuthbertson's injunction order. It was heard by Cuthbertson. In less than five minutes he dismissed it. When I later raised the question as to why my appeal had gone before the same judge as whom order I was appealing, the reply that I received was that as I had not used the correct form on which to appeal, that was the reason it had gone before Cuthbertson again. The form that was used was the same one that my wife obtained for me when she asked The Durham County court for a form on which to lodge that appeal. Irrespective of the form, it was more than clear that I was appealing Cuthbertson's order which eventually was to be instrument in my imprisonment and subsequent stroke.
The way in which Cuthbertson granted that injunction order was improper and probably illegal. As the proceedings before him had been adjourned, it was his duty to make known when proceedings were to reconvene. He failed to do that.
The solicitor Alison Stott was not at that time acting for Carr though she had not made this known. At a directions hearing in January 1996 before Recorder Fryer-Spedding, my wife, Counsel Michelle Temple, and Carr, Alison Stott declared that up until that time she had not been acting for Carr but had only been assisting her. Recorder Fryer-Spedding replied to her, "you are either acting for Miss Carr or you are not". Stott replied, "Well I am now sir". Michelle Temple expressed disbelief at that declaration made by Stott. Her declaration made improper the court having delegated her the work of preparing the judges bundles ready for trials. As an assistant to Carr, she had no legal standing to allow that. As it turned out, she then passed on that work for Carr to carry out. Carr then left out substantial documentation from the judges bundles and also that which was supplied to me. On June 1st 1994 an application for consolidation of the three cases that was made by Carr, was heard by The Durham County Court. District Judge Scott-Phillips ordered then that the cases could not be tried as a consolidated action. Carr agrees that she deliberately left that documentation from the bundles. Recorder Fryer-Spedding alleged that the cases were consolidated and tried them as a single action. I had prepared my prosecution and defence on the basis that they were to be tried one after another.
In any event, the bundle of documents ready for trial had been supplied to Jackson's solicitors at Darlington County Durham while they briefly represented me. I could not get them returned to me as they said that they required them for costing purposes. The Northern Area Legal Aid Board, at Eagle Star House, Fenkle Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, had falsely alleged that Counsel representing me was of the opinion that my chances of winning my cases and defence was poor. They then withdrew legal aid from me six weeks before the trials. For the second time in three years, the Legal Aid Board lied. A copy of Counsels opinion is available now toshow that the prospects of both my cases and defence was very favourable. I have made the allegation that the Legal Aid Boards lies were as a result of Masonic influence within its members. I stand by this allegation and the evidence to show their lies is available to all who should wish to examine it.
Around six months ago, The Northern Area Legal Aid Board refused me legal aid for representation when Carr made a further application for my imprisonment, one of around six in all, by alleging that I had not fully complied with the order made by her partner in crime the former Recorder Fryer-Spedding. Any acts to pervert the course of justice are crimes and both Carr and Spedding are shown by indisputable evidence to be guilty of that. Those who are empowered to act upon the available evidence become accessories after the fact by failing to carry out the work for which the public pay them. None, including those in high office, are excluded.
There were a number of quiet remarks made by Fryer-Spedding to Merrit while I delivered my cases and defence, Counsel for my opponent. Lord Justice Pill and Auld said that this would have been due to the familiarity between Spedding and Merrit. That was not an excuse for which I can ever accept. That statement made by I believe L.J. Auld was very consistent to the injustice that was clearly meant to defeat me. I require that L.J. Pill and Auld declare any membership of Freemasonry. Until that happens then I regard their ruling as null and void. They both will have heard of "conflict of interests". As my "arguments with Freemasons" had been introduced into court proceedings before Fryer-Spedding by Counsel for my opponent, Merrit, then it was a certainly a factor in those proceedings and as such, the decision making process afterwards should have had excluded from it all members of Freemasonry. I extend this to include The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, The Master of the Rolls Lord Woolf, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, and The Home Secretary Jack Straw. I had argued in court that such alleged arguments with Freemasons had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues before the court. Recorder Fryer-Spedding simply brushed my complaint regarding that matter to one side. The proceedings were tape recorded as court procedure requires and the allegations which I make regarding that which took place in that courtroom can be duly proved to be true. Perhaps now those tape recordings will go missing much like lots of other things have gone missing these past five years which would have been of benefit to me?
Maurice Kellett.
-----------------------------
Any E-mail please to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk