The Chief Clerk, 16A The Lyons,
The Sunderland County Court, Hetton-le-Hole
John Street, Tyne-Wear,
Sunderland. DH5 OHT.
27 December 1997.
Re: Cases DH400950, DH400898, Plaintiff Mr. M. Kellett Defendant Miss S. Carr.
Case DH604359 Plaintiff Mr. W. Kellett Defendant Miss S. Carr.
Case NE401650 Plaintiff Miss S. Carr. Defendant Mr. M. Kellett.
Case DH500628 Applicant Miss S. Carr. Respondent Mr. M. Kellett.
You will find enclosed a copy of a letter from one my doctors dated 24 December 1997. Its contents are self explanatory. It confirms that I am still presently medically unfit to attend Court to represent myself and my father to oppose the corruption which has been exercised by the court under the attempted masquerade of alleged justice. I now have no doubt whatsoever that it can be shown that my opposition to the infestation of the evils of Freemasonry are responsible for my current position. I am fully aware of the massive membership of Freemasonry within the British judiciary and legal profession.
The death of my Father in Law some four weeks ago, of which I attach some responsibility to the corruption of which I refer, has also added to my concern. I will refer to that later herein.
I outline some facts below of which the supporting indisputable evidence has been made fully available to The Master of the Rolls Lord Woolf, The Lord Chief Justice, Circuit Judge Helen Paling, and District Judge Cuthbertson.
Most of the evidence which has been made available to the above was also made available to Lord Justice Pill and Auld. I will refer to the significance of their action in turn in the following statements of fact.
STATEMENTS OF FACT
1) At the outset of litigation the Northern area Legal Aid Board refused my application for legal aid. They falsely alleged that an injunction was already in place to prevent Miss Carr from draining her property on to ours. I am now in possession of all of the documents that were submitted by the former Nancy Bone Solicitors in that application. That documentation shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the Legal Aid Board were fully aware that the application for legal aid was for assistance in obtaining that injunction. The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay was supplied with part of that documentation which was then available to me. His office suggested that I could make an approach about that matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner. Shortly before this Christmas his office have agreed to another extension of time to allow me to present to him the documents that I, and now many others, have in their possession which shows that the Legal Aid Board are required to give an account of how they arrived at their decision.
At the time of their refusal for legal aid I did make the statement to the Northern Area Legal Aid Board Office at Newcastle that I believed that their decision was most certainly influenced by Freemasons. In the light of the documentation which I can now show, I stand by my statement.
2) The firm Nancy Bone Solicitors of Durham City were later to hold a lien over my files and evidence of which they had been supplied for use in the application for legal aid.
a) District Judge Scott Phillips was of the opinion that the trials could proceed without me having access to those files and evidence. He said that it was unlikely that he would allow video evidence anyway.
b) At a directions hearing District Judge Jones told me that I could apply to the court for an Order to be made of Nancy Bone Solicitors to return my files and evidence to me. I then made application to the court for such an order. Many weeks elapsed without a date having been set for my application to be heard. I contacted my former Member of Parliament Roland Boyes on the matter. At another directions hearing, District Judge Scott Phillips said that the hearing could not go ahead as I had not used the correct form on which to make my application. He also said that as it had been District Judge Jones who had indicated that I could make such application to the court, then he thought that the hearing should be heard by District Judge Jones. I was informed that District Judge Jones would not be available for some time.
c) The hearing was then listed before Judge Scott Phillips. No reason was given as to why District Judge Jones was not to preside in that matter. At the hearing for my application for Nancy Bone Solicitors to release my files and evidence to me, all parties to the litigation accepted that an Order of the Court had been made for me to attend the offices of Nancy Bone Solicitors to take copies from my files. It had been made by District Judge Scott Phillips. When Nancy Bone Solicitors breached that Order and I returned back to the court on that matter, District Judge Scott Phillips said that it had not been an Order of the court that I be allowed to attend the offices of Nancy Bone to take copies from my files. He said that it had only been allowed by the agreement of Nancy Bone. The files that have now been recently returned back to me from Nancy Bone Solicitors include documents in which Nancy Bone agreed that it had been by Order of the Durham County Court that I be allowed to attend at her office to take copies from my files. As I have indicated, those files have only in recent months been returned back to me. I thank Mr. O'Malley of the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors, and Mr. Wood of Blackett,Hart & Pratt Solicitors of Durham City for allowing this. I thank God that Nancy Bone Solicitors have recently been closed down following the intervention of the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors.
3) On 17 October 1995 District Judge Cuthbertson granted my opponent Miss Shirley Carr of 16 The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne and Wear, an injunction in circumstances that were detached from mans normal accepted principles of justice. Those circumstances, which are supported by affidavits of my wife and I, and of which were submitted before the former Recorder, Mr. Fryer Spedding, are summarised in the following statements:
a) At the proceeding in my opponents application for injunction heard before District Judge Cuthbertson. His first words were directed to the solicitor Alison Stott of Durham City, who, it was wrongly believed at that time was acting for my opponent Miss S. Carr. Mr. Cuthbertson's first words to Alison Stott were, "You don't expect me to grant this today do you?". Alison Stott's reply to Mr. Cuthbertson was, " Yes I do sir". Mr. Cuthbertson made it known to us that he had little time on that day.
During the hearing it was agreed in general principle that joint undertaking would take the place of the injunction of which application had been made. Mr. Cuthbertson then granted the work of drafting the wording of the undertakings to Alison Stott. I was told that I would be allowed to voice any concerns that I might have on the wording of the undertakings when Alison Stott returned back to the Court with the completed draft of the joint undertakings. Proceedings were then adjourned. There was no indication whatsoever that the return back to Mr. Cuthbertson was to be sometime later that same day. My wife and I left the Courthouse believing no other than those adjourned proceedings were to recommence on anther day. Alison Stott returned back to Mr. Cuthbertson sometime later that day. Mr. Cuthbertson then granted the injunction in the full terms of which application had been made.
Two days later Alison Stott sent me a copy of the injunction Order that had been granted by Mr. Cuthbertson. The injunction, improperly granted by token of the fact it was Mr. Cuthbertson's duty to have ensured that I was made aware when the that hearing was to recommence, unjustly Ordered the following:
1. Monitoring either by photographing,videoing or recording by any means 16 The Lyons, Hetton le Hole.
2. Contacting the Plaintiff's employers, business associates, public bodies and persons generally regarding her private life and personal affairs and from similarly contacting her resident partner, Norman Pringle.
3. Encouraging his dogs to bark incessantly or cause damage to the Plaintiff's fence or her property generally.
4. Speaking directly to the Plaintiff or making comments to or about her in her presence.
b) With reference to 1. above my opponent Miss S. Carr was aware that I had video filmed and photographed not only the drainage coming from her property on to ours, but the measures that had been taken to ensure that situation would continue. Miss S. Carr was in full knowledge before she purchased her property with a former boyfriend, Mr. T. McCabe on 26 August 1988 that the rear of that property, 16 the Lyons was without drains. Not only was she aware of that but she falsely swore in her affidavit of 12 May 1994 that the predecessors in title to her property had been responsible for the limited drainage work that had been carried out on other parts of that property in February of 1988.
The Building Control Department of Sunderland Civic Centre confirmed by letter that Miss S. Carr had been the applicant in drainage proposals for 16 the Lyons, more than some six months before she was to purchase it. Miss Carr falsely swore that she had been unaware that the rear of the property had no drains.
The Building Department of Sunderland Civic Centre had confirmed by letter that Miss Carr had not complied with Building Regulations. She had been required to submit a Building Application prior to the replacement of her property roof which took place on the weekend of 13 and 14 November 1993. When damage was sustained to our property on that weekend as a result of those employed by Miss Carr, the six men involved in that work refused to give their identity. There was nothing to identify those responsible. The van that they used contained no markings. When Miss Carr was approached she too refused to name her workmen. It was to take almost three years for her to name them. Material supplied by me to the Department of Social Security in confidence for use in their investigations into that matter then found its way to Miss Carr for use in her actions against me. Miss Carr is an employee of the DSS. Commencement of the actions stemmed from that situation. Our property commenced with the intake of water immediately after that damage along with the danger of the collapse of a wall through the roof of our property. Due not only to Miss Carr, but to the lies stated by former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding while he gave his judgement based upon his lies and untrue concoctions. After more than four years that situation still remains.
The overall effect of the unjust granting of the injunction of 17 October 1994 was to deter me from collecting further evidence. I feel sure however, that in any event, former Recorder Fryer Spedding would have looked the other way from any evidence that was of benefit to me. He was guilty of that anyway in the evidence that I put before him.
My appeal at the injunction of 17 October 1995 granted by Mr. Cuthbertson was heard by Mr. Cuthbertson. I was aware that it was improper procedure that an appeal should be heard before the same judge who's Order was subject of Appeal. The hearing for my appeal was listed to be heard before Mr. Cuthbertson. The time allocated by the Court for it was five minutes. Mr. Cuthbertson refused to remove the unjust injunction. He did ask if I would be prepared to agree to an undertaking in the same terms as were contained in the injunction that he had granted. I refused that for two reasons. He had not asked Miss Carr if she was agreeable to similar constraints. Whether by injunction or by my undertaking the end product was exactly the same. He had certainly affected my rights in collecting evidence for use in those trials. Mr. Cuthbertson refused to rescind that injunction.
On my later approach to the Clerk of The Durham County Court, he gave as the reason for my appeal being heard before Mr. Cuthbertson was that I had used the incorrect form on which to lodge my appeal. The form used was the same one which had been supplied for my use by The Durham County Court when a request was made for the form on which to lodge my appeal.
c) At a directions hearing at the Newcastle County Court on 19 January 1996 Alison Stott Solicitor told former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding, in the presence of myself, my wife, Miss S. Carr and Michelle Temple QC that up until that time she had not been "acting" for Miss Carr but had only been "assisting". This fact is supported by the affidavits of my wife and I which were also placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding. It is clear therefore that Mr. Cuthbertson had granted work to Miss Carr's "assistant" not to her advocate. It is considered that this was a breach of Court rules. There are a number of questions arising from this. They will not be included here.
Shirley Carr had made her application for that injunction under case number DH400950. I was the Plaintiff in that action in my attempt to stem the drainage coming from her property. I then found myself being referred to as the Defendant in my own action under case number DH400950. When I raised this matter with Mr. Cuthbertson at the hearing of 17 October 1995 he indicated that it had no relevance as he knew what was meant. There onwards I continued to be referred to as the Defendant in my own action.
The Durham County Court had previously granted the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial to Alison Stott. Upon my receipt of what was alleged to be my copies of those bundles from the Durham County Court ,it was found that there was considerable documentation missing from them. I approached the court on this matter. I also approached Alison Stott who at first said that she had no intention in taking staff off important work to supply me then with copies of the missing documents. The Durham County Court then made an approach to Alison Stott on the matter. My subsequent approach to Alison Stott brought her reply by letter that she had not indeed been responsible for the preparation of those bundles. She wrote that Miss Carr had carried out that work. Miss Carr was not authorised to carry out that work. As a result of Alison Stott confirming before the trial judge, former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding that she had not at that time been "acting" for Miss Carr, then clearly that situation was also improper. On 6 June 1997 Lord justices Pill and Auld were made aware of these latter facts but said that they were not going to comment upon it.
It was still impossible to verify the full extent of the documentation that Miss Carr had excluded from the bundles that she had prepared ready for trial. This was due to the fact that I could not verify the full extent of the documentation because of Nancy Bone Solicitors withholding my files. On 27 August 1997 on one of her harassing visits to our property, Miss Carr confirmed that she had also excluded other documentation from the bundles when she had prepared them. Part of that documentation had included her application to the Durham County Court for consolidation of all actions into the single case of NE401650. Her application was refused by District Judge Scott Phillips on 1st June 1994. Later, Mr. Fryer Spedding lied in the opening of his judgement when he commenced with the words;
"In these consolidated actions". He has shown this fact by agreeing to the release of his approved transcript of judgement which contained that statement and many others, some of which are shown to be lies.
d) Following Mr. Cuthbertson having granted the injunction in the circumstances that I state, Miss Carr and her present boyfriend, Norman Pringle set out on a course of action which was undoubtedly meant in attempts to have me breach that injunction improperly granted on 17 October 1995. On occasions it had been necessary for us to have Police attend when it was clear what the actions of Shirley Carr and Norman Pringle were about.
Around some eleven years ago I approached my former Member of Parliament, Mr. Roland Boyes on the matter of what I considered were irregularities in the use of a building near our home. It had been wrongly alleged by the local authority that the building and premises concerned had been subject of planning consent. I also informed Mr. Boyes of my findings of considerable membership of Freemasonry within members of staff of Sunderland Civic Centre. He then gave me the following warning, " If you have tangled with Freemasons you have bitten off more than you can chew". He declined my request to raise the matter in the House of Commons. Later, after considerable pressure from me, the authority was to agree that not only had the building not been subject of planning approval, but there had never been a planning application submitted for its use.
The Local Authority then granted the building and premises established use. I took up the matter with the firm of Solicitors Slater, Smith, and Sherwood Smith. Mr. Slater was at that time Leader of the Sunderland Town Council. He was also a senior partner in that firm of solicitors. Following matters which can only be described as bizarre. I parted company with Slater, Smith, and Sherwood Smith solicitors. My approach to the local secretary of The Law Society brought his reply which indicated that as my action was against the Sunderland City Council in that matter, Slater, Smith, and Sherwood Smith Solicitors should not have acted for me because Mr. Slater was leader of the Sunderland Council.
Around five years ago the Member of Parliament Mr. Chris Mullin also learned of the large membership of Freemasonry within members of Sunderland Civic Centre. His concerns were reported under the news headlines about it in the Sunderland Echo Newspaper. Contained on that same page was the story of the early retirement of the Chief Executive of Sunderland Civic Centre. I then made my first contact with Mr. Mullin. Following his previous reported concerns, Mr. Mullin introduced his Secret Societies Declaration Bill before Parliament. It was defeated on its second reading. That I believe is proof enough of the considerable influence by Freemasonry within Central Government. An apparent fact which has recently been stated to me by someone who is in a position to known that.
My wife and I had previously had an interview with that Chief Executive and another member of his staff who is still in employment at Sunderland Civic Centre. It was on the matter of statements made to me which were considered as an attempt at intimidation by two Officers of the Planning Department to stop me from pursuing the matter concerning the use of the building concerned in that matter.
It was for those reasons and by reason of the threats that were made to me in attempts to stop me from pursuing those matters some twelve years ago that I decided to conduct my own investigations. Those investigations revealed to me the extent of the membership of Freemasonry within staff of Sunderland Civic Centre. From that time on, I was also to learn of the massive membership of Freemasonry within the legal profession and police.
A threat that I along with my wife and two daughters were to be stabbed was repeated to police by the man who had made that threat. Police took no action on the matter. Eventually Freemasons became aware of my investigation into their organisation.
My final decision to carry out my own investigations into Freemasonry came as a result of my having been battered and then having been hit by a car that was driven at me. One of my legs that had received the full force of the impact had shortly before that time been subject of internal knee examination. There had been problems with infection following the opening that had been made in it. At the time of the assault upon me, the wound had healed but had been subject of considerable pain. I had been informed by Mr. Checketts of Sunderland General Hospital, who had carried out that examination, that he had found there was considerable wear of the knee joint. He had told me that there was little that he could do with it other than 'put bits of metal in it". He advised against that because he said that it did not always work. He was of the opinion that the knee damage was likely to have been as a result of the nature of my work.
That assault upon me followed my enquiries to staff at British Coal Estates Department which were somewhat connected in respect of the use of the building mentioned above. Up to 1982 that building had been owned by British Coal. The policy of British Coal then was that no building leased by them could be used for a particular purpose unless planning approval had been granted for such purpose. I have said previously that Sunderland City Council were later to admit that the building had never been subject of a planning application let alone their consent.
The man who carried out the assault upon me had been a former employee of British Coal and had formed a relationship with senior members of Staff of the Estates Department of British Coal. The man had previously carried out acts which were improper by attempting to barr a right of way that we had. British Coal, who owned the land subject of our right of way, were to concede the matter of that right of way.
Following my battering and injuries received from the car that had stuck me, police were summoned to the scene. It was from that point, following more investigation that I became aware also of massive membership of Freemasonry within the local police. I had required hospital treatment following the assault upon me. I was denied that right. I was verbally abused by members of the police that evening. Those corrupt members of police involved in that matter claimed that there had been a fight between the man who had carried out the assault upon me. At the scene of the assault upon me following the arrival of a police officer, my assailant immediately made the statement to him, " all I did was to push him out of the way". He had used his fists and then his car to do that. I was already bleeding heavily from a large gash on my face and one beneath my throat. One of my legs was bruised by having been struck by my assailants car and my having become trapped beneath it. Despite that admission the police officer who had arrived on the scene declined to repeat the statement my assailant had made to him agreeing that he had carried out that assault upon me.
When the matter came before Houghton le Spring magistrates a man, Mr. William Mosely, who was well acquainted with myself and my assailant sat on the bench. We had been jointly charged with criminal assault upon one another.
It was clear on the evening of the assault upon me that the comments that were made to me by one police officer related to other matters where my investigations into Freemasonry was a factor.
In the event, that evening I had to crawl for most of the five miles back from the police station to my home in torrential rain. The police surgeon who had attended me had nothing other than lint on which to cover my wounds. He had told me that I required hospital treatment. The lint that was held in place only by my own dried
blood was quickly washed off my wounds and I again started to bleed heavily again.
When I eventually arrived home at around two thirty that morning my wife immediately summoned a doctor. I had been released by those corrupt members of police at 12.30 am. That doctor verified that I was in need of hospital treatment as a result of those wounds that I had received during the assault upon me.
My assailant was at that time socially acquainted with that magistrate. Even in recent years they have been observed in one another's company at a local public house. Mr. Mosey was a regular visitor to the local Masonic Hall. My assailant supplied it with fruit and vegetables for use in its functions.
I had obtained some business for that magistrates garage. Mr. Mosely was to tell me later that day when I attended his home, after our appearance before him and the other magistrate, that he had stood down as he could not sit in judgement due to having been acquainted with myself and my assailant.
The action against us was withdrawn in Court. The man who had carried out that assault upon me walked free.
Much later a police officer approached me and told me that as Mr. Mosely had said that he had stood down from the bench, (but had remained seated upon it throughout) the remaining magistrate was required by law to be a Stipendairy magistrate. The policeman said that the remaining magistrate had no such qualification therefore those proceedings had been improper. My approach to the Clerk to the Houghton le Spring magistrates Court eventually brought his reply that the other magistrate was on holiday and he had been unable to contact him to ascertain whether or not he had the required qualification of Stipendairy Magistrate. The policeman who assisted in that matter then told me that the Clerk of the Court would not have needed to contact the magistrate concerned as he would have been well aware that the other magistrate did not have the status of Stipendairy Magistrate.
I referred that matter by letter to then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Her office then passed it on to the Lord Chancellors Department. The matter was covered up, and the Lord Chancellors Department refused to verify whether or not the remaining magistrate was indeed a Stipendairy Magistrate. Following further enquiries, and information offered by other members of the police, it became clear that the man had not been a Stipendairy magistrate. Those proceedings at Houghton le Spring Magistrates Court had been unlawful.
I made complaint against the police relating not only to that assault upon me, but to other action that had been taken against me by others. The others included the man who repeated his threat to police that I along with my wife and two daughters were to be stabbed. I have confirmed that police took no action on that matter. That man was not even cautioned by police. My wife and I approached an Inspector Scott at Gillbridge Avenue Police Station, Sunderland. He was not acquainted with the matters involved in the assault etc upon me. Following our account of what had taken place, Inspector Scott said that he thought that Freemasonry most certainly had a hand in those matters. He then went on to tell us of the considerable membership of Freemasonry within the police. He advised that we should not mention Freemasonry at all to the Inspector who would carry out the investigation into my complaints against the police. Though at that time it was not known which Inspector would carry out the investigation, Inspector Scott said it was almost certain that the investigating Inspector would be a member of the Freemasons. As we left the room at Gillbridge Avenue Police Station Inspector Scott warned my wife and I that if we repeated anything of what he had told us, he would deny all knowledge of it.
The investigating police officer was an Inspector Luke. He was stationed at Newburn Police Station, Newcastle which is some twenty five miles or so from Hetton le Hole. He had formerly resided at Hetton le Hole. There was a distinct change in his attitude towards me when I did eventually raise the matter of my concerns regarding the influence of Freemasonry in the matters subject of my complaint. When I asked if he was a member of the Freemasons he replied that he was a former member of them. There is no such person as a former member of the Freemasons. Once a Freemason, always a Freemason.
His advice and that of the solicitor that I had employed, a Mr. Gatherer, was, "rather than spread your shot you should only concentrate upon what was done to you while you were in police custody on the evening of the assault on you". Foolishly, I was naive then, and did not think that corruption could extend that far. Later Inspector Luke asked me if I knew how difficult it was to prove a complaint against police when in their custody because only policemen were present? He said from his experience, in such a situation, one policeman tended to cover for another policeman. For use as evidence a tape recording of a conversation between another police Inspector and myself was supplied to my solicitor, Mr. Gatherer. That tape recording did go some considerable way to show that his actions were highly questionable following a further assault upon me by having a beer bottle thrown at me showering me with broken glass and the threat of further action against me. My later attempts to obtain the return of that tape recording were met by the statement that the tape recording was required for costing purposes. Eventually, after I reported those matters to then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, I was able to obtain the return of that tape recording.
My complaint against the police was not upheld. I had been led by the advice of my solicitor and Inspector Luke into a situation which the Inspector later agreed would be difficult if not impossible to prove.
Five years ago we had five vehicles crash into the frontage of our property in a nine month period. Police and the Local Authority stated that we had no special problem. One of my daughters who was then on leave from University, came close to being a victim of one of those crashes. The crashes ceased when I placed a large notice on our property stating that the Police and Local authority had been fully aware of the problem and the notice stated that we believed that they would only take action when someone was killed in one of those crashes. Police agreed that they had photographed the notice that I had placed. I insisted that police place equipment to ascertain the reasons for those crashes. Eventually they agreed to place that equipment near our home. The equipment was in position for around some two months. There was then a fire near to the equipment and I expressed concern to police about the possibility of damage to that equipment. the following morning a Sergeant Yates, who was dealing with the matter telephoned me to say that the equipment had not been harmed and the information that had been obtained from it did prove that we had a problem with speeding traffic. He said he would arrange a meeting between himself, ourselves and the local authority to discuss the problem of those crashes. Though Sergeant Yates said that the meeting would take place two weeks following that, it was many weeks before that meeting took place.
At that meeting between Sergeant Yates, Mr. Donaldson of the Civil Engineering Department of Sunderland Civic Centre, Mr J. Hibbert then Clerk of the Hetton Town Council and my wife and I, the statement was then made that we had no special problem. Sergeant Yates suggested that the speed limit past our home could be increased and that would take matters out of police hands. Sergeant Yates made no mention whatsoever of the information that he had previously agreed he had obtained from the police equipment he had placed near our home. The meeting broke up without any resolution to our problem.
The following morning we awoke to find that another vehicle had been crashed into the frontage of our property. I telephoned Sergeant Yates at Pontiland Police Headquarters, Northumberland. He laughed and made the remark, "you would almost think it was being planned wouldn't you?". After I had asked him why he had not mentioned the findings of the equipment that he had placed near our home at the previous days meeting, he replied that he had got nothing from the equipment because it had, "blown up". That statement was of course contrary to his earlier statement to me.
I contacted a Police Inspector who was not a member of the Freemasons. He agreed that he was aware that the equipment had been installed near to our home. He said that he was not aware that it had, as alleged by Sergeant Yates, "blown up". He said that he would contact me later that day. When that Inspector returned back to me he said that the equipment had not "blown up".
I reported that matter by letter to then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. No action was taken on that matter either.
The above facts, and many more not included here, were my reason for continuing to investigate corruption within Authority. The more investigations that I have made the more evidence of corruption I have found. That corruption is without any doubt whatsoever connected with Freemasonry and my resolve to highlight that fact to the general public.
On 8 May 1996 I saw a man on top of a ladder with a camera fitted with a telephoto lens. He was looking into our property from the small holding wrongly established by Miss Carr next to our property. My wife had just changed her clothing in our bedroom. When the man realised that I had seen what he was doing he quickly descended the ladder. On leaving Miss Carr's property I approached him and found that he was a Mr. Smales, the surveyor employed by Carr. He denied that he had been using a camera fitted with a telescopic lens to look into our property and took from behind his back a pair of binoculars which he alleged he had used. Mr. Smales had previously been given full access to our property and had attended it on the agreed day. An argument then arose which was tape recorded by Miss Carr. In that recording, Miss Carr is heard to allege that my wife was also held by those same constraints under the injunction granted in the circumstances described of 17 October 1995. Mr. Cuthbertson had ordered that I would not be allowed to take photographs, video film, or monitor in any way Miss Carr's property. Here the situation was that Miss Carr was allowing Mr. Smales to monitor our property and she tape recorded my reaction to that. I was not allowed to tape record, or film in any way that same incident.
After we had asked for police to attend they said that they would interview Mr. Smales about the incident. They agreed that Mr. Smales conduct was not acceptable and was likely to result in a breach of the peace. Nothing further was heard from police on that matter.
The issues regarding the small holding referred to above are to be referred to the Ombudsman. The Local Authority have said that buildings existed on the site of the small holding before Miss Carr commenced to establish it around 1987/88. Miss Rawlings, an officer of the Environmental Department of Sunderland Civic Centre, told me that they had based their assumption that building had previously existed on that site from the information that Miss Carr had supplied to them. In recent months, Miss Carr has been compelled to submit a planning application to allow her to continue to stable her horses near our home. The Development Control Committee had been wrongly told that there had been no problems with rodent infestation coming from the Small holding.
The Local Authority's Rodent Officer had previously made visits to the site following large numbers of rodents having been seen to be nesting in the area. An Officer of the Public Health Department informed us that they were to lay test baits to ascertain the extent of the problem. He later claimed that the test baites had not been taken and therefore there was no indication of any problem. At the time of my subsequent approach back to the Public Health Department and a visit to our home by the Officer concerned, the rodent officer who had been responsible for laying the baites asked who had said that the test baites had not been taken. He was then given the name of the man concerned. The Rodent Officer then told my wife and I that at the time he had laid those test baites, though there was heavy rain and gales, he had seen signs of rodent infestation. He confirmed that to his knowledge no one had returned back to Miss Carr's Small Holding to check those test baits.
On our approach to the Public Health Officer concerned in that matter he then agreed that no one had returned to check the test baites and that his original statement that they had been checked had been untrue. He also agreed that other information that had been given to us by the Public Health Department in connection with matters concerning Miss Carr had also been untrue. A letter detailing those facts was forwarded to the Public Health Department of Sunderland Civic Centre more than two years ago. Though it has been agreed that they are in receipt of it, they have declined to reply to it. Despite these facts, Planning Control Members, including the Local Council Members were supplied with documentation which wrongly alleged there had not been a problem with rodents.
On 14 June we received word from the Public Health Department that Miss Carr had made complaint about our two dogs barking. I denied that our dogs which we had kept for many years were causing any problems whatsoever. The following morning I sat at a table in our rear garden. Our two dogs were with me. I heard scratching on the fence adjoining Miss Carr's property and our own. One of our dogs did start to bark. It was evident that our dog was alarmed at the noises being made on the fence. I ignored those noises coming from the fence until it was clear they were being made deliberately to have our dogs bark. I eventually placed a ladder against our wall and looked over the fence. I then saw that it was Miss Carr who had been making those noises and that a tape recorder was being employed to record the results so obtained of our dog barking. I acted as I saw the situation. I believe anyone in that situation would have reacted in that same way. I made it clear to Miss Carr my feelings at her having carried out that act to make our dogs bark. Miss Carr of course was tape recording my reaction to her act. I was fully aware of that.
Miss Carr then made an application for my imprisonment. She alleged that I had breached the injunction of 17 October 1995 so granted under the circumstances previously detailed.
The allegations were that I had breached the injunction of 17 October 1995 as a result of my reaction to her on the morning of 15 June 1996. That was the morning when I did eventually react to her intimidation by her act of deliberately making noises to make our dogs bark. On previous occasions we had asked police to attend.
She also alleged that the injunction had been breached after my wife reported to Miss Carr's employer, the Contributions Agency of the DSS at Newcastle, that Miss Carr had been seen out horse riding that same afternoon when it was reasonable to presume that she should have been engaged with what she alleged in Court proceedings, as her "full time employment" as a National Insurance Inspector. A log which had been originally supplied to the DHSS Fraud Section Officers in confidence, then supplied by the DSS Contributions Agency to Miss Carr for her use against me, containing times of when Miss Carr had been at home or had been carrying out other activities when again it was reasonable to presume that she should have been engaged with her employment, was later alleged by Miss Carr to have been fully investigated. She alleged that the contents of the log had been found to be without foundation. The log had not been fabricated in any way and Miss Carr was at home or was carrying out those activities at times when it was reasonable to presume that she should have been engaged with her employment. No such alleged full investigation by the DSS has required any approach to me. The contents of that log were true and any alleged full investigation would have quickly shown that the contents were true.
Miss Carr's present resident boyfriend Norman Pringle submitted a signed statement in the proceedings alleging that Miss Carr's Welfare Officer at the DSS Contributions Agency had said that I was tapping her telephone. Miss Carr had made a similar allegation. I had approached the DSS Wefare Officer and he said that his dealings with Miss Carr were private and confidential. He would neither confirm or deny that he had made such a statement to Miss Carr. I continued to press the DSS on that matter. I also asked the DSS to confirm who had carried out the alleged full investigation into the contents of the log. The reply came in the form of a letter from the Solicitor who represented the DSS. He warned me not to continue with my approach to the DSS. He received an appropriate reply to the statements that he had made to me in his letter. He is considered to have been in breach of his powers by attempting to stop me from making those approaches to the DSS.
Of course Mr. Cuthbertson then included in injunction that he had allowed, in the circumstances so described, the inclusion that I would not be allowed to contact the DSS. He therefore prevented me from continuing to press the DSS Welfare Officer for an answer as to whether he had made the statement to Miss Carr that I had been tapping her telephone. The allegation was yet another fabricated lie. One of the many which Miss Carr has relied on for both her defence and prosecution. I requested an investigation into the allegation by British Telecom who carried out a site examination and it was apparent that the allegations of telephone tapping had indeed been a further lie that had been used by Miss Carr and indeed Mr. Norman Pringle.
In the same written submission mentioned above, Mr. Norman Pringle had agreed that he had trespassed upon our property in July of 1994. he agreed that he had altered part of our property to enable drainage coming from Miss Carr's property to continue to flow on to ours. Evidence was produced to the court that he had caused damage to our property when he had carried out that trespass and alteration of our property.
The following year Miss Carr complained to the court that we had left a television monitor in a bedroom window of our property when we went on holiday in 1995. Of course Miss Carr had meant a television camera, not a monitor as she had described it. It was as a result of Mr. Pringle having agreed that he had unlawfully entered upon our property, altering and damaging it that the television camera was placed there the following year.
The television camera was pointing to the area where Mr. Pringle had previously entered upon our property.
The injunction that Mr Cuthbertson had granted was to prevent me from taking any and video film or monitoring Miss Carr's property by any means. In her application for my imprisonment it was alleged that I had breached that Injunction granted on 17 October 1995 by having that television camera pointed along the boundary of our two respective properties.
The application to commit me to prison was heard before District Judge Helen Paling. I was represented by Counsel Michelle Temple and a solicitor Mrs. P. Tench. I was urged by Michelle Temple not to put up a defence against the application that had been made because of an alleged reputation that Mrs. Paling had for harsh sentencing. A transcript of the tape recording alleged by Miss Carr to have been made on 15 June 1996 following her actions to make our dogs bark, was produced by Miss Carr. A copy of the alleged recording made that day was supplied to me. The copy of the tape recording had been subject of considerable editing. Those parts which clearly Miss Carr did not wish to produce had been edited out. Mrs. Paling made remarks during that hearing which were offensive to me and are considered not to have been appropriate. She decided that I had breached that improper injunction of 17 October 1995. She then sentenced me to three months imprisonment.
In 1997 Judge H. Paling was to preside at an appeal hearing which was listed for hearing over a period of three hours. She warned me not to speak so that I could present the appeal. After about five minutes after again warning me not to speak she then dismissed the appeal. I will refer to that later.
When I was admitted to Durham Prison I advised the authorities that in protest at the injustice that I had suffered by the actions of Mr. Cuthbertson and Mrs Paling I would, in protest, refuse all food, drink, and essential medication. I informed Prison Officers of the reasons for my protest. They acted in a manner of which I fully agree was proper. I did refuse medication for hypertension, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis. I also refused chemo treatment which I had then been receiving for three and a half years.
The following morning after a night when a Prison Medical Officer had examined my feet when they had started to show signs of bad circulation, I was admitted to the Hospital wing of the prison. It was said that my refusal to take medication for my diabetes was the likely reason for the problem with my feet.
Attempts were made to persuade me to take food drink and medication which I continued to refuse. I declined offers of help by inmates of the prison who were made aware of what had taken place. Their idea of justice differed from mine. I received a warning from Prison Officers not to be seen talking to them following a warning from an inmate that I must not talk to Prison Officers. I did not heed that warning. I found prison Officers to be good people with one exception. The exception was a prison officer, a fat Yorkshireman referred to as Peter, who had made attempts to antagonise me. Other prison officers warned me not to react to that prison Officers acts because he was a former Freemason Grand Master. That situation of course suggested that Peter knew who I was and that was the probable reason for his actions against me.
That prison officer referred to as Peter sprung at another prison Officer after he had wished me luck in my appeal which was to be heard in the London Court of Appeal that day. Former Grand master Peter created a scene in the hospital ward when he shouted abuse at Prison Officer Natrass following his having wished me luck with my appeal that day.
In the early hours of the following Monday morning I was found unconscious in a cell. When I returned to consciousness, I found myself chained to hospital bed and was guarded by two Prison Officers.
I was informed that it was thought that I had suffered a stroke. It was then that I first encountered the prison officer referred to as Peter. He carried out acts that were most certainly meant to prevent me from having rest. His acts of breaking wind did disturb other patients in that ward. At times he apparently went to sleep and his snoring also caused disturbance on that ward. He also removed a stool that was being used by another patient on which to rest his feet. Peter used that stool for his own comfort.
In her attempts to keep me imprisoned Miss Carr had the solicitor Alison Stott send a fax to the London Court of Appeal saying that from Miss Carr's knowledge I was not of previous good character and had appeared in Court and had been bound over. That was another of the lies freely used by Miss Carr in her attempts at character assassination. I have evidence which shows that Alison Stott broadcast to others that there was an application pending for my imprisonment. She has denied that she did that, but the evidence is to be produced to the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors. Allison Stott was fully aware that there had not been an agreed bundle for use in those trials. She declined to reply to my request for her agreement to the fact that there had not been an agreed bundle as Mr. Fryer Spedding had falsely alleged when he delivered judgement. She thus assisted in perpetuating Mr. Fryer Speddings lie that there had been an agreed bundle for use in those trials. Alison Stott also failed to answer my letters requesting that she admit that the cases had never been subject of consolidation.
Previously Miss Carr had sworn in an affidavit she submitted before Mr. Cuthbertson that I had told her that I had taken an overdose and had received treatment a Cherry Knowle Mental Hospital. That was again one of the many lies that she used against me. Mr. Cuthbertson said that he had noticed that statement which had questioned my sanity. He suggested that I should not proceed with a Libel action concerning that allegation until the current matters had been dealt with.
I have never been bound over by any court at any time. I am of previous, and remain of good character. I have never received treatment at any Mental Heath Hospital. I have never made any statement to Miss Carr that I had taken an overdose and had received treatment at Cherry Knowle Mental Hospital or indeed any Mental health Hospital. Police have supplied me with a document showing that I have no criminal record whatsoever. My doctors have confirmed by letter that I have never received treatment at any Mental Health Hospital. Cherry Knowle Mental Hospital have confirmed by letter that I have never received treatment at that hospital. Miss Carr was advised some months ago that I am to proceed with Libel action against her in respect of the false statements that she has both sworn and written about me. It is anticipated that she will be served a summons in the very near future. Problems in finding a solicitor, and consequently a Barrister who are not members of the Freemasons is holding up this action. It will not prevent me however from continuing with my actions against her.
The Court of Appeal reduced my sentence to one of a suspended prison sentence. I was then released from prison. Miss Carr then commenced with further lies that upon my release from prison. She falsely said that I had harassed her immediately after I was released from prison. Medical evidence is available to show that Miss Carr's accusations were an extension of her many lies that she has used in her actions against me. She had again commenced with her lies in her attempts to build a further case against me.
Other files belonging to my wife and I which were extremely relevant to these actions, went missing from the offices of Smith and Graham Solicitors of Durham City. They said that despite extensive searches they had been unable to find those files.
I had eventually been able to obtain legal aid in January 1996 for help in both my defence and prosecution. shortly before the trials were to be heard before former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding, the Legal Aid Board withdrew legal aid from me. That was an act almost anticipated by me following their previous act of wrongly alleging that I already had an injunction to prevent Miss Carr from draining her property on to ours.
Following the withdrawal of legal aid I requested my solicitors, Jacksons of Darlington to return my files to me so that I could continue with my defence and prosecution. Their reply was that they required the files for costing purposes. They did however supply me with some copies from my files.
The trials commenced on 21 October 1996 and continued until 24 October 1996.
Though Mr. Fryer Spedding had previously ruled that the cases were suitable for representation by Counsel he did not ask for any reason as to why I represented myself. Miss Carr was represented by Counsel, a Mr. Merritt.
During those proceedings I and others became aware of the considerable body language between Mr. Merritt and Mr. Fryer Spedding. Mr. Fryer Spedding made quiet prompting comments to Mr Merritt while I delivered my arguments.
At the outset of my cross examination of Miss Carr I highlighted to her that she had sworn a statement contrary to one that she had sworn shortly before that. Only one of those material statements could have been true. Before Miss Carr could reply to me Mr. Fryer Spedding immediately warned me not to do that as I would not gain by it. He thus grossly breached my very basic rights of cross examination.
Mr. Fryer Spedding then interrupted my cross examination of Miss Carr when it was becoming apparent that Miss Carr could not show in which area of the land subject of dispute under case NE401650, that she had falsely alleged she had planted vegetables. He thus deprived me of being able to show evidence of further perjury being practised by Miss Carr.
Mr Fryer Spedding again interrupted my cross examination of the surveyor employed by Miss Carr, Mr. Smales. It was the same Mr. Smales who had climbed the ladder placed upon Miss Carr's small holding and had been looking into our property with a camera fitted with a telephoto lens. He had alleged that it had been binoculars that he had used to carry out that act. I had continued to ask Mr. Smales to explain a very material statement that he had made. When it was extremely apparent that Mr. Smales could not give a satisfactory explanation for the statement that he had made, Mr Fryer Spedding then interrupted my cross examination of him by entering into a conversation with Mr. Smales in respect of the length of ladders that surveyors were allowed to carry. That subject had not arisen and had nothing whatsoever to do with the matters subject of my cross examination. Mr. Fryer Spedding's interruption allowed Mr. Smales to avoid answering the question that I asked of him. I believe that had been the intention of Mr. Fryer Spedding.
During a site visit to our respective properties, Mr Fryer Spedding warned me not to speak to him unless Mr. Merritt was present. Mr. Fryer Spedding and Mr Merritt were observed in conversation when I was not party to that conversation. Mr. Fryer Spedding and Mr. Merritt carried out rough measurements of the respective properties, I was not party to their actions and no explanation was given by them for what they were attempting to show.
The following lies were stated by Mr. Fryer Spedding when he delivered his judgement in the actions. Those lies, clearly shown, are contained in the approved
transcript of Mr. Fryer Spedding's judgement some are as follows:
a) In his opening statement Mr Fryer lied when he said that the cases had been consolidated into a single action. That single action was given as case NE401650. Miss Carr's application and subsequent refusal on 1 June 1994 by the Durham County Court presided over by District Judge Scott Phillips. Following the release of my files formerly held by Nancy Bone Solicitors I have produced before Mr. Cuthbertson a copy of the Order made by Mr. Scott Phillips refusing consolidation of the cases. Mr. Fryer Spedding had tried the actions as a single consolidated action. After those trials, I was then referred to as the defendant in all of those actions. That of course was also untrue.
b) Mr. Fryer Spedding lied when he said that there had been an agreed bundle for use in the trials. That untrue statement is again contained in his approved transcript of judgement. In fact not only had there not been an agreed bundle before the trials, but I did not have a complete bundle as Jackson's Solicitors of Darlington, County Durham, held them for costing purposes. It was not even possible for Jackson's Solicitors to agree a bundle because the bundles that they held were not complete as Nancy Bone Solicitors held a lien over the files that related to the earlier part of proceedings that had taken place. No statement was made by either myself or Mr. Merritt that we had agreed a bundle for use in the trials.
c) Mr. Fryer Spedding lied when he said that the two respective properties subject of the dispute had only been divided on 2 February 1976. The title deeds of the properties were placed before Mr. Fryer Spedding. Contained in them was the declaration that by 1947 both the respective properties were already divided with their own curtilages. Mr. Fryer Spedding referenced the title deeds to our properties so it is shown that he had examined them. Still he lied and said that after 2 February 1976 what had formerly been known as 16 the Lyons then became known as 16A The Lyons. That was not the true situation existing on 2 February 1976 the deeds to our respective properties clearly showed that. The affect of that lie by Mr. Fryer Spedding was to bypass Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1926 which safeguarded our right of entry to the rear of our property by route of along the disputed land and then across the rear garden of Miss Carr's property. that right of way has been used to access the rear of our property for more than the past one hundred years. If the respective properties had been divided on 2 February 1976 as falsely alleged by Mr. Fryer Spedding, then Section 62 of the Law of Property act would not apply. In the circumstances by his lies Mr. Fryer Spedding granted Miss Carr an injunction preventing me from ever returning back onto land which not only do my father and I own, but he has ruled that it can not be used as the right of way to the rear of our property. The position Mr. Fryer Speddding's corrupt judgement has left us in is that we can now only access the rear garden of our property via the living room of our home.
The rear garden of our property extending to almost quarter of an acre, contains buildings which include pig sty's and poultry houses that have existed from at least the turn of the present century. The fact that the disputed land was and remains as the right of way to the rear of our property and therefore I was not a trespasser upon it as falsely alleged by both Miss Carr and Mr. Fryer Spedding. To put it in simple language, hell will surely freeze over before I will concede that we must now use the living room of our home to access the rear of our property. When we have attempted to dispose of rubbish collecting to the rear of our property by burning, Miss Carr immediately complains to the Public Health Department that it is causing her nuisance. I have made it know to Lord Wolf that a health hazard exists by the collection of refuse to the rear of our property. I have indicated to him that I will not put the health of our Grand children at risk because of the collection of that refuse. Failing a just resolution, and the admission by the judiciary that Mr. Fryer had lied when he delivered his judgement, there will be little alternative but to refer to law and demonstrate our rights under Section 62 of the Law of Property act 1925. Any interference in that right will be contrary to Law of which all, including the judiciary are subject.
d) Mr. Fryer Spedding agreed in his judgement that up until 2 February 1976 when we then purchased our property from my parents the disputed land and the rear garden of No. 16, the property now owned by Miss Carr, had been used as the route to access the rear of our property No.16A. Mr. Fryer Spedding falsely alleged that as there had been no reservation of that right of way across the rear garden of No. !6 at the time my parents sold their property on 10 December 1982, then that right of way came to an end. There is no requirement for any such provision in the conveyance of property. Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 was created so as to protect rights that had not been reserved in the conveyance of property. If such rights of way were required to be reserved in the conveyance of property, then there would have been no need for Section 62 of the Law of Property act 1925. I can only assume that Mr. Fryer Spedding was also aware of these facts. Other than that, his knowledge of the Law becomes subject to question.
My father agreed in sworn statements submitted in proceedings that when we had purchased our property from them on 2 February 1976 the right of way used by them when they were tenants in our property to access the rear of our property was to remain. That right of way had been used by other tenants of our property up until the time we purchased it. That right had never been revoked and our right to use the said route to access the rear of our property remains valid and will not be defeated by a man who has lied when he delivered judgement.
e) Mr. Fryer Spedding lied when he alleged that he was satisfied that acts of tidying of the disputed land had been carried out by Miss Carr prior to litigation proceedings. Video film taken at the time the disputed land was fenced from Miss Carr on 15 February 1994, produced in evidence before Mr. Fryer Spedding showed that not only had tidying up and alleged vegetable planting by Miss Carr had not been carried out on the disputed land, but Miss Carr's own garden is shown on the video film evidence to be covered with piles of rubbish, overgrown, and was strewn with items of polythene bags, a crate of bottles, bins and overgrown mounds of the remnants of former fires used to burn rubbish. Miss Carr had moved into her property on 26 August 1988. The video film showing that scene was taken on 15 February 1994. Miss Carr swore in one of her affidavits, " I have always taken a keen interest in my garden". Mr. Fryer Spedding saw the "keen interest in my garden" sworn by Miss Carr. He saw all of the video film which was totally contrary to the commonly accepted term of a " keen interest" in a garden.
Mr Fryer Spedding lied when he repeated Miss Carr's untrue allegation that she had planted cabbages upon the disputed land. Mr Fryer Spedding referred to it as "vegetable planting". Miss Carr had been unable to show that she had planted anything upon the land subject of dispute. As I have previously stated Mr. Fryer Spedding interrupted my cross examination when I was beginning to show that Miss Carr could not detail in which area upon the disputed land she had alleged that she had planted cabbages. I had previously submitted to the court video film evidence lasting for some two or three hours. Mr. Fryer Spedding Ordered that the video film evidence could not last for more than twenty minutes. The twenty minutes he ordered for the video film evidence was in total for all of the cases. The video film evidence then had to be reduced to a few minutes for each of the cases.
f) The video film evidence shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding shows beyond any possible doubt that guttering on the rear of Miss Carr's property had been sloped in the direction of our property. It shows that it had never been intended other than that the drainage falling into that guttering would flow into our property. Miss Carr and Mr Fryer Spedding falsely alleged that the drainage was intended to flow in the opposite direction of the fall of the guttering. Their statements are shown to defy the law of gravity. Mr. Fryer Spedding said that I should have taken action to fit a stopper on the guttering on Miss Carr's property to prevent it from discharging drainage onto our property. I am unaware of any law which allows me to carry out any such act. District Judge Scott Phillips had told Miss Carr that as an owner of property she was liable for any nuisance arising from it. It is certain that had I fitted a stopper on Miss Carr's property guttering then she would have taken action against me. The video film evidence remains as proof that had I carried out such an act, it would not have prevented the drainage from coming on to our property, such is the fall of the guttering in the direction of our property.
g) Miss Carr had falsely sworn in an affidavit that the rear yard of her property was not sloped in the direction of our property. She went on to swear that no water drained down it in the direction of our property. Mr. Smales the surveyor employed by Miss Carr, submitted in his report that he had poured a bucket of water on the rear yard of Miss Carr's property and had observed that the water flowed down the yard in the direction of our property. He wrote that he had seen the water flow into a gap between two paving stones. He had lifted one of the paving stones and had found that a hole had been made under our wall leading through into our property. He wrote that he did not consider that the hole had been formed by natural means.
Mr. Smales wrote that the rear of our property was at a lower level than that of Miss Carr's. He swore that the difference in the two levels was some two feet. That was untrue and Mr. Fryer Spedding became aware of that when he made his site visit.
Mr. Smales said that he felt that the hole had not been made from Miss Carr's side of the wall. When I carried out my cross examination of Mr. Smales I asked him to give his reasons for making that statement. He continued to decline to give a reply to that. Eventually Mr. Fryer Spedding intervened and went into conversation with Mr. Smales about the length of ladders that surveyors were allowed to carry. That subject had not been at issue and had nothing whatsoever to do with my line of questioning. By his intervention Mr. Fryer Spedding allowed Mr. Smales to avoid answering that very material question.
At the site visit Mr. Fryer Spedding was made aware of how the hole mentioned by Mr. Smales could not have been made from our side of the properties. It is clear that he did not wish to consider that. The video film evidence shown to Mr. Fryer Spedding showed other holes that had been made on the rear yard of Miss Carr's property adjoining our property. The video film evidence showed that a paving slab on the rear yard of Miss Carr's property adjoining our property had been left propped against a wall clearly to assist the drainage collecting on Miss Carr's property rear yard to drain through the holes that had been made under a wall of our property. Mr. Fryer Spedding was shown that video film evidence. To compound the lies that he had already stated, Mr. Fryer Spedding then made the statement that he could not understand why anyone would want to make a hole beneath our wall either for the benefit of our property or Miss Carr's property?
The situation, shown very clearly indeed to Mr. Fryer Spedding by both photographic and video film evidence proved the following:
The rear yard of Miss Carr's property is above the level of the rear of our property. It has no drainage source. It is some two feet below natural ground level. Her property's rear yard has been sloped in the direction of our property. Our property's rear yard is below the level of the rear yard of Carr's property , not be some two feet as was sworn by Mr. Smales, but in giving judgement Mr. Fryer Spedding said that the difference in the two levels was 'significant" and that our properties rear yard was at the lower level of the two properties. the two yards are divided by a wall which is wholly on our property. It was that wall where holes had been made beneath it to allow the drainage from Miss Carr's property to flow into ours.
When Mr. Fryer Spedding stated that he could not understand anyone wanting to make a hole beneath our wall, he was fully aware of another two facts. These were that the rear yard of Miss Carr's property has no drain upon it. The yard, some two feet below natural ground level, is walled on four sides. It also acts as a natural source for surrounding land drainage. Should the water not be able to drain from Miss Carr's property rear yard then it would flow into her through a doorway into her property. That is the situation that Miss Carr placed us in.
Our property's rear yard, is at a lower level than that of Miss Carr's and is also below natural ground level, walled in on four sides, and has a doorway onto it from the living room of our home. If our drain on the rear yard of our property should block, and that has happened from time to time, then the only route the drainage can take is into our home. This situation has only been averted by my wife and I having to bale out water from our rear yard. I now have problems with my legs and I cannot carry out this task any longer. I continue to hold Miss Carr and Mr. Fryer Spedding responsible for this situation. The failure of the judiciary to admit that Mr. Fryer Spedding lied when he delivered judgement has only extended the situation which continues.
Mr. Fryer Spedding was made fully aware of those fact by the evidence put before him and by reason of his visit to the properties. He conveniently did not mention that he knew that the rear of Miss Carr's property was without drainage, was below ground level, and that her property's rear yard was sloped in the direction of our property. Despite being in the full knowledge of those facts, he made the astonishing statement quoted above, that he could not understand anyone wanting to make a hole beneath our wall. The only other explanation that I can offer for Mr. Fryer Spedding's statement was that he was confused. From the facts available, and because Mr. Fryer Spedding had lied in the content of other of his statements, I do not believe that Mr. Fryer Spedding was confused in any way.
h) Mr. Fryer Spedding lied when he stated in his judgement that the pre contract enquiries made prior to Miss Carr purchasing her property had been lost and could not be found. He falsely alleged that he thought that the copy of those enquiries had been destroyed by termites. At no time during proceedings in any way whatsoever, by anyone whatsoever, was it said or written that those pre contract enquiries had been lost. That was another of Mr. Fryer Speddings lies the end product of which was to protect Miss Carr.
i) The solicitor Mr. P. Graney of Houghton le Spring, Tyne and Wear swore false information in his Statutory Declaration that was used to lodge a caution at HM Land Registry in respect of the disputed land. Mr. Fryer Spedding attached some importance to that caution having been lodged while delivering his judgement. Evidence was available to show that Mr, Graney had lied in the false statement that he had included in his Statutory Declaration. Following our approach to police with the evidence that was available, they suggested that we should approach Mr Graney with it. On our approach to Mr. Graney he agreed that the very material false information that he had included in his Statutory Declaration was untrue. He agreed to swear an affidavit retracting the false statement.
Mr. Fryer Spedding Spedding had four copies of Mr. Graney's affidavit before him. He had four copies of the Statutory Declaration of Mr. Graney before him as an exhibit showing that Mr. Graney had not told the truth in it. He had four copies each of the evidence that was available to prove that Mr. Graney had sworn that false information in the Statutory Declaration that he had used to lodge a caution at HM land Registry at Durham City. Despite these facts Mr. Fryer Spedding stated in his judgement that he had not looked at those so did not take them into consideration. It is almost certain that he had looked at one of the four copies of the Statutory Declaration which I placed before him. If he had not looked at that evidence, then it is clear that he agrees that he had not looked at all of the evidence which I put before him. Or could it be, in view of the other of his lies, that Mr. Fryer Spedding realised that taking that evidence into consideration would have been of benefit to me, and therefore concocted yet another of his untrue statements? in any event, whatever the true explanation may be, either by not looking at the evidence which I placed before him, or by concocting a story that he had not looked at that evidence, any of those acts were further evidence of the injustice that he clearly had decided to use against me. It was Mr. Fryer Spedding's duty to have taken appropriate action when he was aware that Mr. Graney had sworn that false information. He took no action and alleged he had not looked at that material evidence which was placed in quadruple before him.
j)The latter facts, and others, are more particularly described, along with evidence to support them, in my 96 page affidavit of 13 August 1997 and my 39 page affidavit of 4 November 1997.
The first of the two affidavits referred to above was submitted before Judge H. Paling at an appeal hearing on 13 August 1997. Evidence to show that Mr. Fryer Spedding had lied when he delivered his judgement, and had allowed Miss Carr to use considerable perjury is contained in those affidavits. Mr. Fryer Spedding was most certainly aware of Miss Carr's perjury, yet it is clear he added to it by the lies that he stated while he delivered his judgement. He failed in his duty to act upon the perjury that was clearly used by Miss Carr in those proceedings. The evidence of that perjury remains fully available. It has been shown to the judiciary. The judiciary continue to take no action on it.
In Common Law a man who carries out acts contrary to his terms of employment is accepted when he carries out such acts to be not acting under the terms of his employer and therefore his employer has no liability and is not responsible for any such acts carried out by that employee. The employee is then held solely responsible for any contrary acts that may have carried which may have resulted in injuries to a third party.
It is shown that Mr. Fryer Spedding's acts, contrary to commonly accepted principles of justice, was in breach of his privileged employment. His acts have grossly injured a third party, namely my wife and family, and his acts are considered to have been contributory to the recent death of my Father in Law. It is said that a judge cannot be prosecuted for any acts which he carries out in his role as a judge. I do not accept that principle. It fly's in the face of the commonly accepted principles of justice when a judge is shown to have lied, concocted stories detached from the truth of that which was shown to him, made statements contrary to the evidence that was produced before him and alleged that he had not looked at material evidence that was placed before him. That judge's acts were a breach of his employment. The employer is the British public. Therefore it is my contention that I should be allowed to proceed with a claim for damages from that former judge, Mr. Fryer Spedding. This is being given due consideration.
k) Mr. Fryer Spedding ruled that Miss Carr held no title to the land subject of the dispute. He ruled that the most likely party to have acquired title to that land was my father. There was little alternative for Mr. Fryer Spedding to rule that way, though his ruling that I did not have joint title to that land is not accepted either by myself, or my father, or others who swore affidavits and Statutory Declarations in support of my, and my fathers joint title to the land. When it can be shown that a judge has lied when he has delivered judgement, then it is considered that such judgement is null and void. I and my father continue to hold title to the disputed land. Because of the acts of Mr. Fryer Spedding, some of which have been detailed here, I consider therefore that his judgement is null and void.
l) Miss Carr had made a further application for my imprisonment again by her liberal use of false allegations. That application was to have been heard before Mr. Fryer Spedding. I raised the question of the lawful validity of the injunction granted by District Judge Cuthbertson on 17 October 1995 under which Miss Carr made that further application for my imprisonment. Mr. Fryer Spedding suggested that the application to commit me to prison again should not be heard then. He said that he would allow a further twenty eight days in which Miss Carr would be allowed to make a further application for my imprisonment. He ruled that any such application should be reserved to be heard before him.
Following those trials I reported by letter some of Mr. Fryer Spedding's acts to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay. Mr Abley, of the Newcastle County Court later informed me that Mr. Fryer Spedding had gone into retirement around two weeks after the end of those trials. That was around the same time as I reported some of Mr. Fryer Spedding's acts to Lord Mackay. It is suggested by facts that Mr. Fryer Spedding's decision to retire was clearly a sudden decision. Mr Abley confirmed that he then had difficulty in contacting Mr. Fryer Spedding.
m) Mr. Fryer lied when he said that he considered that the bathroom of Miss Carr's property was served a single wall serving only it. He then ruled that the wall that suffered damage by Miss Carr's anonymous roofing people was not a party wall. The outward evidence shows that the damaged wall is a party wall. There is no separate wall serving only Miss Carr's bathroom. The title deeds to our property makes the declaration that all walls dividing the properties are party wall. It would seem that Miss Carr and Mr. Fryer Spedding between them set about demolishing that declaration. All walls between the two respective properties remain as party walls.
o) There are other outstanding matters which should be resolved by law. One is the fact that Miss Carr had a post concreted on to the frontage of our property and has refused to remove it. In view of my experiences with the Durham County Court, it would seem that the only resolution to that is to have the post removed.
p) Mr. Fryer Spedding wrongly agreed that Miss Carr could trespass upon our property by allowing he to place tiles overhanging our property where previous to 13 and 14 November 1993 when Miss Carr had her property roof replaced none had existed. There is no necessity for that overhang. That too will be eventually resolved.
4. I eventually lodged an appeal against Mr. Fryer Spedding's corrupt judgement. I was then informed that I required leave to appeal. I reported facts to Lord Woolf and the Lord Chief Justice. I raised the possibility that Mr. Fryer Spedding could have been a member of the Freemasons and that could have been instrumental in his acts some of which are detailed herein. I was informed that Lord Woolf and the Lord Chief Justice had discussed the matter and had decided that it should be left to the individual judge concerned whether or not to declare any interest in the membership of Freemasonry.
In May of 1996 I supplied Lord Nolan with a dossier containing facts of some of my problems where I believed that Freemasons were instrumental in them. Lord Nolan's Secretary thanked me by letter on behalf of Lord Nolan. The letter said that the Home Affairs Commons Select Committee had not then commenced with their enquiry into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary but that the dossier that I has supplied would be of use to the Committee.
Shortly before that time I was assaulted by another Freemason after I declared interests on his behalf. Though that assault was witnessed by leading members of the local authority and was reported to police, they took no action, because they believed that those leading members of the local authority were unlikely to say what they had seen of my assault. The facts of that assault, and the details surrounding it were reported to the Government Inspector who carried out a public enquiry into the City of Sunderland Unitary Development Draft Plan.
Miss Carr owns around twelve acres of land which was included in proposed housing under the City of Sunderland Unitary Development Plan. Miss Carr was aware that I was to oppose the housing proposals under that plan. That was most certainly another reason why Miss Carr wanted to have me imprisoned, and it is shown that she was prepared to lie to do it. I was due to go before the Government Inspector to present an argument against those housing proposals.
Freemasons were aware that I had supplied Lord Nolan with a dossier of facts that had taken place and were relative to the evils of Freemasonry. Later, I was warned by a leading member of our local authority, who described himself as a "Master Freemason" that I was subject of discussion in Masonic Halls and that I would not be allowed to continue with my investigations into Freemasonry. He said that if the government attempted to implement the recommendations of the Home Affairs Commons Select Committee, following their report into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary ,they would make trouble for the government.
5. I was given very little time to submit the files to the London Court of Appeal. There had been considerable difficulty in receiving the form on which to lodge the application for leave to appeal. After the bundles had been sent to the London Court, I received a letter from the Court of Appeal saying that as they had not received the bundles my application for leave to appeal was listed to be heard for dismissal. When I forwarded to the Court of Appeal a copy of the receipt of the recorded delivery of the bundles I then received the reply that the bundles had been found.
6. I went before Lord Justice Pill and Auld on 6 June 1996. Though the normal time allowed to present a case for leave to appeal is twenty minutes, I was before the court only for a total of twenty two minutes. That is all of the time that I was allowed in my attempt to put an argument for leave to appeal. It was shown that Mr. Fryer Spedding had lied when he stated that the four actions had been consolidated into a single action. As there had been no consolidation of the cases then there were four individual cases subject to my application for leave to appeal. In those circumstances court rules say that I should have been allowed no less than eighty minutes in which to present my cases for leave to appeal.
Lord Justices Pill and Auld went to some lengths in their attempts to dispel my concerns regarding Freemasonry within the legal profession. I had made Lord Woolf and The Lord Chief Justice aware of the statement made by the solicitor Mr. Michael Fisher who represented the "Guildford Four" which was that, " The Court of Appeal is perceived to be riddled with Freemasonry". As a result of my contact with some members of its staff there now seems little doubt that Mr. Fisher's statement is true.
Their Lords Justices decided that Mr. Fryer Spedding was allowed to warn me not to highlight the fact that Miss Carr had commenced to swear contrary statements while I carried out my cross examination of her. They were of course wrong in that decision. The purpose of cross examination is to attempt to get to the truth of things. One cannot carry out that work unless one is allowed to show that the party being subject of cross examination is not telling the truth. That was the situation with Carr when she had commenced to swear contrary statements when I had commenced with my cross examination of her. When I highlighted that fact, Mr, Fryer Spedding immediately warned me not to do that as I would gain nothing by it.
When I became aware that their Lords Justices were referring to me as the defendant in all of those actions I informed them that they were wrong in doing that as I had been the Plaintiff in two out of those four actions. Their reply came that whether I was the Plaintiff or Defendant for purposes of judgement it was matterless. That was another of their decisions which I continue to dispute.
Their Lords Justices said that the body language of Mr. Fryer Spedding and quiet prompting's to Mr. Merritt Counsel for Miss Carr were probably due to the familiarity between the two. Whether they were familiar with one another or otherwise I remain of the opinion that those acts were improper.
Proceedings before Mr. Fryer Spedding were tape recorded so the judiciary are in a position to confirm the facts that I report here.
7. Following further approaches to Lord Woolf and The Lord Chief Justice I received a reply that I could seek leave to petition the House of Lords. The letter stated that I should write to that effect to Lord Justice Auld. I did write to that effect to L.J. Auld. His reply came by way of a further Order that I would not be allowed to petition the House of Lords.
8. Lord Woolf and the Lord Chief Justice had then agreed to look at the evidence that I sent to them which showed that Mr. Fryer Spedding had lied, concocted stories, made statements contrary to evidence shown to him, and other acts while he delivered his judgement against me. I sent Lord Woolf and the Lord Chief Justice further evidence to back up those facts. From a reply that I received from Lord Woolf it was apparent that he had not seen or considered all of the evidence that I had supplied to him. I currently await his reply as to whether or not he has looked at all of that evidence.
9. My member of Parliament Mr. Fraser Kemp was provided with documentation to show that Mr. Fryer Spedding had lied etc. when he delivered judgement on 24 October 1996. He suggested that my only course of action was to place matters before the European Court. I have now made contact with the European Court and the lodging of my appeal before that court is now underway. I have been warned not to be so naive as to believe that the infestation of Freemasonry has not percolated into the European Court.
10. Mr. Fryer Spedding ruled that my father was the most likely party to have gained title to the disputed land. After those trials my father commenced action to go back into possession of the disputed land. District Judge Cuthbertson ruled that the case should be heard before Mr. Fryer Spedding. He then learned of Mr. Fryer Spedding's retirement and then ruled that my father should show cause why it was not an abuse of court time in commencing his action.
My father appealed against that ruling and on 13 August 1997 my fathers appeal went before Judge Helen Paling. Prior to that hearing she had been given my 96 page affidavit of 13 August 1997 detailing, along with evidence, to show some of the lies that Mr. Fryer Spedding had used in his judgement. when Mrs. Paling entered the courtroom we were told to stand. We were then told to sit. Judge Paling stared at me and then shouted at me to stand up. I got to my feet as quick as was able to but that was clearly not quick enough. Mrs Paling shouted at me again to stand up. I walk with the aid of a stick. An ankle which was to have been operated on to remove bone fragments from it, was to have been carried out in June of 1996. I asked for a postponement of that operation as I was led to believe that the trials were imminent. The trials were delayed because Miss Carr had been unable to obtain the barrister of her choice. After the trials it was decided by the doctor treating me that the damage to my ankle was then too far advanced to go ahead with the operation and asked if I wanted a "new foot". That foot is permanently heavily swollen and gives me considerable pain. It was clear by her attitude that Mrs. Paling was most displeased with my having produced evidence to show that Mr. Fryer Spedding had indeed lied when he delivered judgement. Though the time allocated for that appeal was three hours, Mrs. Paling sharply delivered a speech over a period of five minutes, warned me at least twice not to speak, and then dismissed the appeal. My father was so alarmed by Mrs Paling's attitude towards me that he rushed from the Courtroom and was ill. The Court Usher expressed concern for my father who is approaching 84 years of age. He has still not recovered from his shock of seeing that action by Mrs.Paling. Those proceedings were also tape recorded.
That was again, in my opinion, proof that some members of the judiciary seem to believe that their independence from Government allows such acts. Their independence does not allow such acts. The judiciary are the servants of the British Public and they are in those positions only by the grace of God and the British Public. How can an appeal be an appeal when the appellant is deprived of the right to speak to put his case for appeal? This matter is more fully described in my letter to the Sunderland County Court which has been sent to the Lord Chancellors Department. I received a request from the Lord Chancellors Department asking that they be allowed to send a copy of my letter of complaint regarding the conduct of Mrs. Paling to her. As justice could only be served by the letter of complaint regarding her conduct being served upon her, I had no hesitation in agreeing to it.
Though the Newcastle County Court referred that matter to the Lord Chancellors Department, and that was many weeks ago, despite having been told that a reply was imminent, to the present date no reply has been received from the Lord Chancellors Department. It is considered that proceedings should not continue until that matter is resolved.
11. It was apparent that both Judges Mrs. Paling and Mr. Cuthbertson were in receipt of affidavits showing that Mr. Fryer Spedding had lied, concocted stories, made statements contrary to the evidence shown to him and had alleged that he had not looked at all of the evidence that I placed before him. It was apparent that both judges Mrs. Paling and Mr. Cuthbertson were also in receipt of the evidence of the perjury that Miss Carr had blatantly used during proceedings. It was equally apparent that those judges were in full receipt of the fact along with the evidence, that the solicitor Mr. Paul Graney had sworn false information in a Statutory Declaration that he had used to lodge a caution at HM Land Registry. Though it was their duty to act when it can be shown that perjury had been used by Miss Carr both as her means of defence and prosecution, these judges have not acted upon the truth of the facts that has been shown to them. Indisputable evidence has been provided to support the above mentioned acts yet there has been no action taken on these matters.
12. An application was made to the Court asking that District Judge Cuthbertson should no longer preside in the matters before the Court. That application was heard by District Judge Cuthbertson and he has ruled that he will continue to preside in these matters. European Law is that a judge should be impartial to the proceedings before him. The question arises as to how a judge can be impartial when it is he who is the subject matter of the hearing before him?
13. Following my statement to Miss Carr that I was to proceed with a Libel action against her she then alleged that I was in breach of the June 1997 law of harassment by reporting to her employer the fact that we had just then seen her and Mr. Norman Pringle shopping at a local store on a Wednesday afternoon. Again, that was at a time when it was reasonable to presume that she should have been engaged with her "full time" employment as a National Insurance Officer. Police arrested me under the allegation of harassment and I was detained for three hours. I was then released following a medical examination by a police doctor who expressed concern for my safety. He said that he found my blood pressure was 250/150 and it was considered that I could suffer a heart attack or another stroke.
I agreed to make a statement to Police at my home. I produced evidence to support the fact that former Recorder Mr. fryer Spedding had lied when he gave judgement and that Miss Carr had deliberately left out documentation from the bundles when, without authorisation, she prepared those bundles ready for trial. Sergeant Urquhart listened to part of a tape recording of a conversation that took place between Miss Carr and I. She had agreed in that conversation that she had deliberately left out documentation from those bundles. On that same day as I tape recorded that conversation, Miss Carr had previously harassed my wife and I by coming into our property and making demands that she be allowed to speak to me. When I did eventually speak with her it became apparent that she had a tape recorder concealed on her person. She eventually produced the tape recorder when I informed her that I was aware that she had it on her person.
Miss Carr demonstrated her general attitude by providing the Court with a copy of the tape recording for use in the hearing of 30 October 1997 before Mr. Cuthbertson. She had secretly made that tape recording while she stood at the door of our property. It would seem that she had forgot to edit out her statement to my wife and I which was that if we were tape recording that conversation, she said that it would be a breach of her privacy. Miss Carr has in the circumstances agreed that for her to carry out that act, upon our property, she is guilty of an invasion of our privacy. By her own evidence Miss Carr shows that it was she who was guilty of harassment. That tape recording had also been subject of editing.
Sergeant Urquhart who was the police officer who had arrested me, was shown part of the evidence surrounding that incident as well. After He had examined some of the evidence to show that Mr. Fryer Spedding had lied, and that Miss Carr had used perjury, and had deliberately left out documents from en on the order of a judge.
85. The time allocated for the appeal before Judge Paling was three hour hearing. It lasted approximately five minutes. I was ordered not to speak to present the appeal and Judge Paling then dismissed it. My father, who is eighty three years old took ill when he saw the way that I was treated by Judge Paling. My father says that he considered Judge Palings treatment of me on that day as nothing short of humiliation. I agree with my fathers opinion.
86. The court Usher expressed concern for my father when he hurriedly made an exit from the courtroom. By the rules of the court I cannot represent my father unless he appears with me. When Judge Paling refused me leave to speak. I had attempted to speak to present the appeal, but after that hearing the court usher said that had I continued to try to speak I could have been sent to prison for it. I can not regard an appeal as an appeal if the appellant is refused leave to speak to put the case for appeal. Shortly before that hearing I supplied a ninety six page affidavit with exhibits to show that Mr. Fryer Spedding had not told the truth when he delivered his judgement. I presently await a reply from the Lord Chancellors Department after the Newcastle County Court referred that matter to them.
87. Mr Fryer Spedding made the following grossly untrue statement while delivering judgement:
"Unfortunately the conveyancing file, particularly the document which would have been particularly enlightening, namely the enquiries before contract, is not available and cannot be found , it has been destroyed by termites I think, and so the court is not assisted by seeing that"
He was referring here to the enquiries before contract of the sale of No. 16 The Lyons to Shirley Carr. Nowhere in any documentary or verbal submissions was any such allegation made by any party.
88. Mr. Fryer Spedding made the following grossly untrue statement while delivering judgement :
"There was no feature in between it and No. 16, there was no easy way in which anybody else could obtain access to it, and subsequently Miss Carr carried out acts on it of cutting grass, tidying up and some vegetable planting, which were carried out, I am satisfied, before these proceedings had either been started or immediately contemplated, so they were not hasty acts carried out sort of in the face of court proceedings. I am satisfied from the evidence that she carried them out because she treated that land as part of her garden, even though she did not
Following further contact with that firm of Solicitors I received a further letter dated 22 November which contained the following statement:
"Evil - the best thing you can do with it is avoid it. Walk away from it. It cannot feed on itself. It will die. If you confront it it will consume you and eat you up. It will get bigger and you will disappear. Your wife and family will be affected. Walk away from it. "Get thee behind me Satan". Facing it head on gives it the advantage. You go tangling with it and that's what it likes. You create your own Karma. You reflect the evil that you fight and you become it yourself. Walk away and it cannot follow. Go be good. Hear your wife. Follow her. Do what she bids you. Walk away from the poison and let her purify you.
16. It is not my intention to heed such warnings. My Father in Law was equally very concerned at what has and continues to take place. His blood pressure rose very sharply. On 25 November 1997 he suffered a stoke. On 27 November he died at The Sunderland Royal Hospital. He had been in a coma for one and a half days. Shortly before his death we asked for the hospital chaplain to attend. What then took place with my father in law convinced me that things that we had discussed together were most certainly true. Though he remained in that coma until his death we did obtain a sign from him that remains without reasonable logical explanation. The Hospital Chaplain agreed that even though my Father in Law was in a coma, he had been able to react to something that he had said. A person in a coma cannot normally react to anything. His death certificate said that the stroke had been due to hypertension. That hypertension was most certainly aggravated by his knowledge of the injustice we are enduring. He was proud to have served this Country in the last World War. Towards the end of his life he saw what the service to this country had helped protect. I hold the judiciary and Miss Carr partly responsible for the death of my Father in Law. The cases have never been Kellett V Carr, or Carr v Kellett, they have most certainly been Freemasonry v Kellett. My former MP Roland Boyes was obviously right in the statement that he made to me around eleven years ago when he said that if I had tangled with Freemasons I had bitten off more than I could chew. His other statement was that Freemasons would close ranks against me. I am not deterred from opposing the infestation of the Worlds largest Secret Society, the Brotherhood of Freemasonry.
It is apparent that Mr. Dxxxx Pxxxxxxx believes that I am up against the forces of evil. A person who described herself as a legal executive of that firm told me that judges lie in Courts up and down the country. She said that they might even do that if they did not like the way a person looked, or from some other trivial reason. She said that there was nothing that I can do about it. Freemasonry is an evil organisation. Most religious organisations agree that. My attitude is that evil survives only because it is allowed to survive. I have said that the British Judiciary and the legal profession and the police has massive membership of Freemasonry within it. That is not a healthy situation for purposes of justice.
I have been informed that Freemasonry deliberately recruits criminals into its ranks. I understand the benefits are multiple. With so many judges being Freemasons, there is an element of safety because criminals coming before them know that a Freemason Judge has sworn an oath to the Brotherhood of Freemasons to protect fellow members. There is of course the added advantage that criminals can carry out the more dirtier work of the Freemasons and can still be offered similar protection.
After one of my broadcasts on local radio where I expressed concerns about Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary, a man who said that he was a policeman, telephoned the radio station. He broadcast that he and a fellow police officer had arrested a man on a drunk driving charge. he said that the car the man was driving had left the road. He broadcast that they had taken the man back to the police station and had then returned back on patrol duty. When they later returned the man was seen to be in the company of the Duty Inspector who told those police officers who had arrested the man, to forget what had taken place. The policeman broadcast that when he went into court the following day to give evidence on another drink/drive hearing, he saw that the presiding judge was the same one as he and a fellow officer had arrested the previous evening on a drunk/driving charge. The policeman attributed Freemasonry to the situation.
Another well know broadcaster with whom I have spoken expressed his concern in a broadcast that he had been invited to join the Freemasons. He broadcast that he was aware of other secret sects within Freemasonry. He said that there had been passport relaxation for some Freemasons. He also broadcast that the former KGB had infiltrated the Italian Freemasons, and had been able to obtain secrets concerning Western defences. There had been great concern in circles in America over that matter at that time.
That broadcaster told listeners that I had promised to keep them informed should anything happen, which he joked could be my sudden death. I have distributed to sources world-wide some of the facts that have taken place during this four year litigation. My affidavit of 4 November 1997 has been distributed to most countries in the world. If I am to "disappear", as has been suggested in the letter of Dxxxx Pxxxxxxx, then I am sure that my passing will not be the end of things. I am now a member of an organisation who are fully aware that Freemasonry is evil. Only my links with a member of staff at the London Court of Appeal brought that situation about. That was one of the better things to come out of my visit to London on 6 June 1997. I now have no fear of the evils of Freemasonry, I know that one day they will be exposed for the organisation that they really are.
17. I put the following questions to those members of the judiciary who are involved in these present cases. Do you agree that Mr. Fryer Spedding lied when he delivered his judgement? Have you examined the evidence that I have produced to show that he did just that? Do you believe that justice is served by attempting to act upon the judgement of a man who lied when he delivered that judgement?
18. Failing all other measures, consideration is being given to a public exhibition to show what has been taken place during these proceeding's along with the indisputable evidence that is available to show that corruption has most certainly entered into these proceedings. I attach that corruption the reason that it has been as a result of my opposition to Freemasonry.
19. I have said that the judiciary are there by the grace of God and the British Public. It is appropriate should this injustice continue, that the British Public should be made aware of it. For this reason, I have had little choice but to continue to distribute documentation to show the injustice to sources world-wide.
20. I ask that the questions placed in paragraph 17. be answered by Mr. Cuthbertson. If he disagrees with the facts and evidence that I have put before him showing Mr. Fryer Speddings unjust acts then it would be appropriate that I should be informed by him whether or not he agrees with the evidence showing those facts? There is still more evidence available.
21. All of these matters included herein will eventually be published whether I am alive or dead. If the judiciary are truly representative of the commonly accepted principles of justice, then now is the time to show it. If the judiciary continue with their apparent attempts to protect a former member of their number, justice is not served and the judiciary will thus be in breach of their positions of trust. An employee who breaches his terms of employment is no longer an employee of those that employ him while he carries out such acts. he alone becomes responsible for the breaches of his employment.
22. I request that matters be adjourned generally pending the matter being heard before the European Court. The reference number attached to my application is Notre ref. : PK13130. Kellett c. UK.
My father remains unwell and I have some reluctance to risk him having a similar fate as my Father in Law. If the Court can suggest a suitable solicitor who is not a member of the Freemasons that would be extremely helpful. Miss Carr was allowed to go into possession of our land and remove our fence on it, by falsely alleging that she had title to that land. Judge Baird granted an interim injunction allowing Miss Carr to do that without her having to produce a single item to support her alleged title to the land. At that time Miss Carr was represented free of charge by two advocates, who were senior staff members of the University of Northumbria Law Clinic. Throughout the three and a half years of litigation Miss Carr was still unable to produce any document whatsoever to support her false allegation that she had title to that land.
To assist with the injustice, Mr. Fryer Spedding lied in that matter. Those lies are clearly shown and I have therefore resolved that the judgement of a man who has lied cannot be held to be valid. The judiciary surely are aware of this? By the continuance of injustice which most certainly has had a bearing on the death of my Father in Law, I am more than ever determined that justice will be done and that as many people in this world are made aware that the judiciary are also capable of the same sort of corruption of those who sometimes go before them. Only death will prevent me from doing this. I am now sure that Freemasons are capable of arranging that.
I also again request District Judge Cuthbertson to say whether he accepts that Mr Fryer Spedding lied when he delivered judgement and whether he considers that justice is served by attempting to act on the judgement of a man who had lied while he delivered that judgement. It may be that the considerable further costs of placing the matters before the European Court may be avoided if Mr. Cuthbertson considers giving his answers to my questions and gives due consideration to the evidence which shows Mr. Fryer Spedding's corruption . Attempts to protect Mr. Fryer Spedding will ultimately fail and will only result in massive publicity being given to what has gone on here. Mr. Fryer Spedding is at liberty to commence an action against me should the evidence that I have produced to show his lies etc. be shown to be untrue. That would give me the opportunity to produce to a jury the evidence that is available, some of which has been produced before the present court. If he can offer another explanation for his actions then that too may be helpful.
23. Request for costs to be costs in the cause.
Mr. Maurice Kellett.
Go to contact links
Please send any E-mail to:Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk
Back to opening page
Back to page list