Circuit Judge Helen Palin imprisoned me in July of 1996 for alleged contempt of court relative to the illegal injunction granted by District Judge Cuthbertson. I did not see the broomstick that she obviously uses as a form of transport at the time she ordered my imprisonment. My father has since died on April 3 1999. He was another victim of the likes of Helen Palin, the Sunderland Echo newspaper, and the Masonic Judicial Mafia who rule the UK courts. He was also extremely distressed at what my wife had carried out against me. He had found it impossible to accept that my wifeafter our thirty years of marriage, could have carried out the acts which she did, which included forgery, and adultery. What price though the deliverance from the hell created for us by the Masonic Judicial and Police Mafia, who allow the guily to walk free, but allow their victims to be subject of every vile act imaginable? I reported Palin's actions to the Lord Chancellor Irvine. The explanation she gave held as much water as a fish net. Her reputation for being a man hater was borne out by what she did to me on two occasions I went before her. Irvine, the man responsible for her employment, has shown time and time again that he is not fit to hold the position he presently holds. I do hope he has kept his beer stains off the wallpaper we provided to him at eight hundred pounds a roll? If anyone has information that he has, please let me know. He could be prosecuted not only for misconduct in public office, but damaging public property. If we set him above the law, then he becomes above the law.
January 3, 2000.
The Chief Clerk, 16A The Lyons,
Sunderland County Court, Hetton-le-Hole,
John Street, Tyne-Wear,
Sunderland. DH5 OHT.
August 19 1997 Our Ref:: MK/LS/ P01
RE: Case DH6 04359
I presently act for my father William Kellett, who is the Plaintiff under the above case number.
I wish to make a formal protest at the treatment which I and my father received on Wednesday August 13 1997 relative to a hearing that was listed to be heard before Circuit Judge Helen Palin at 10. 30am on that day.
My father is eighty three years of age, and as a requirement in my being able to represent him, he must therefore attend the court with me.
We arrived at the Sunderland County Court at approximately 10.00am on Wednesday August13 1997, where shortly afterwards I swore an affidavit in support of my fathers case. The affidavit that I swore , showed that the former Recorder, Mr. Fryer Spedding had not told the truth when he delivered judgement in cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. These cases have a bearing on my fathers present action in which it is considered that difficulties which are currently being experienced in my fathers application for the repossession of land , are considered to be extremely unreasonable given the true facts of the situation. These facts it would seem, may be subject of attempts to cover them up. Any such attempt to cover up the true facts of what have taken place in respect of the conduct of former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding will not succeed. I do believe that certain members of the judiciary are attempting to conceal the improper acts of other members of the judiciary who have presided in the actions between Shirley Carr and I in case numbers DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. It is also very apparent that members of the judiciary are attempting to parallel my fathers present action with the actions between Shirley Carr and I.
The former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding stated in his judgement that if anyone was likely to have gained title to the land which is subject of this dispute then it was likely to be my father, who is the Plaintiff in this present action to repossess it from Shirley Carr, whom the former Recorder, Mr. Fryer Spedding, ruled on October 24th 1996 that she has no title to it. Despite these facts, District Judge Cuthbertson ruled that my fathers application to repossess the land must be shown not to be an abuse of court time. As it is shown that the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding says that had not looked at all of the material evidence that was put before him, there is some doubt as to whether he had looked at the affidavits and Statutory Declarations that were put before him in support of my, and my fathers use of the land which well exceeded the limitation period under which title to land can be acquired by prescription. I feel there is an abuse of court time, and this abuse has not been brought about by either my father or myself, but by those whose actions do need formal enquiry.
In March 1994, at a hearing which lasted for less than thirty minutes, Deputy District Judge Baird allowed Shirley Carr to remove fencing that had been placed on our land, which is subject of this dispute, and go into possession of it when she then alleged that she had title to it. At that hearing she provided no evidence of title whatsoever, and in the three and a half years litigation which has followed, she has been unable to show any title whatsoever to it. Mr. Fryer Spedding made allegations, which are included in his approved transcript of judgement, which were contrary to declarations that are included in the title deeds of Shirley Carr's property and my own, which he had before him to reference. The affect of one of his untrue statements was to defeat the fact that I was not a trespasser upon the disputed land by virtue of Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925. Statements that he also made in his judgement were grossly contrary to that which was shown to him on the video film evidence, and is no less disturbing than the number of other statements and acts that he carried out during the trials of cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. In my affidavit, I made it known, and I presume that Judge Palin had read it on August 13 and would therefore also have also been made aware that following the trials before the former Recorder, I had reported some of Mr. Fryer Spedding's acts to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay. The reasons for Mr Fryer Speddings actions does of course require explanation.
Mr. Fryer Spedding had also allowed the introduction into those proceedings of my arguments with Freemasons, that subject had no material bearing on the issues whatsoever. Freemasons are however aware that I supplied a dossier to Lord Nolan when I became aware of the Commons Select Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. That dossier covered a period of some years. I am concerned following that enquiry, when it was announced on the public media that the enquiry had not found any improper conduct concerning the Police and Judiciary as a result of membership of Freemasonry within those professions. In a letter that I received from Lord Nolan's secretary, it was said, " I should explain that the Committee on Standards is not empowered to undertake investigations of specific cases". Without investigations into specific cases, then the Commons Select Committee would of course not have found improper conduct by Freemason members of the Police and Judiciary. I firmly believe that the worlds largest Secret Society has no place whatsoever in any position of power be it the police, judiciary, or government at any level. I fully supported Mr. Chris Mullin M.P.s Private Members Bill, which was the Secret Societies Declaration Bill which did not succeed in becoming law around some four years ago. I look forward to the day when police, and the judiciary will be required to disclose any membership of Freemasons, though my chances of being alive when this happens are now apparently somewhat slim.
Mr. Fryer Spedding made untrue statements, and concocted stories, which are included in his approved transcript of judgement in case number NE401650. In addition he alleged that cases DH400950 and DH400898, where I was the Plaintiff, had been consolidated into a single action under case number NE401650 where I was the Defendant. Shirley Carr, who is the Defendant in this present action was the Plaintiff under case NE401650, and her application to the court for consolidation of the cases had been refused. I enclose copies of the two most recent letters that I had written to Alison Stott, who after January 1996 commenced to represent Shirley Carr whereas previous to that time she had only been assisting her. There are issues arising from these facts. Alison Stott did not reply to my first letter included here, and only briefly replied to the second, but it is shown that she continually fails to confirm the true fact that cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650, had never been consolidated under action NE401650, and further, which is again contrary to Mr Fryer Spedding's judgement, there had been no agreed bundle for use in the trials.
The affidavit that I swore on August 13th at The Sunderland County Court, included some of the evidence which is available to support the fact that former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding had not told the truth when he delivered his judgement on October 24th 1996. That affidavit I understand was then handed to Circuit Judge Helen Palin by court staff.
Although the hearing before Judge Palin had been listed for 10.00am. and the period of time allocated to the hearing was three hours, it was almost mid-day before we went into the court room.
Circuit Judge Helen Palin came into the courtroom and immediately commenced with what can only be described as a verbal onslaught upon me. She yelled at me to stand up, and when it would seem that she did not think that I had responded quickly enough, she yelled at me again to stand up. There is little doubt that she was aware that I have difficulties with my legs, and that I use a walking stick for support, and cannot immediately stand up. One of my ankles has been destroyed with a medical problem that I have, and within the past few months I have been told by a medical consultant that there is nothing further that can be done now to help me as it is considered that my ankle is beyond treatment. There is also considerable damage to my knee joints which has been confirmed by internal examination. Perhaps Helen Palin would like to see medical evidence of this, and then she might like to make an apology for her very unreasonable conduct?
The time allocated to the hearing was three hours but during that five minute verbal onslaught I was refused leave to speak and then told that the appeal was dismissed. Circuit Judge Palin had spoken so quickly, and obviously so angrily that it was difficult to follow the context of what she was attempting to convey both to myself, and Shirley Carr.
My father, who is not in good health, was so disturbed by Helen Palin's verbal onslaught
and treatment of me that he immediately left the courtroom feeling ill at what he had witnessed. The Court Usher was apparently so concerned about my father that she suggested that someone should attend to him. My father remains unwell since that time, and it is now under consideration that a solicitor might be employed provided one can be found who is not a member of the Freemasons, because so many solicitors in this region are members of that Secret Society, my investigations have proved this to me.
When Circuit Judge Palin left the Courtroom, the Court Usher then said to me that I should not have attempted to speak to Judge Palin as she could have sentenced me to imprisonment for that. I had attempted to inform Mrs. Palin that I regarded the purpose of that hearing was to show cause that there was no abuse of court time on our part.
Both I and Shirley Carr told the Court Usher that we believed that Judge Palin was in error by saying that the purpose of that hearing was for appeal. Both Shirley Carr and I told the Court Usher that we had both understood that the purpose of that hearing was to show cause why there had not been an abuse of court time in my father commencing his action to repossess land from Shirley Carr. Shirley Carr and I had jointly agreed this and we both told the Court Usher that we had agreed this. The Usher then went to see Judge Palin to relay our joint concern at the fact that we had not regarded the purpose of that hearing as an appeal.
If indeed Judge Palin had regarded the hearing as an appeal, and there is no question that she did, then my concern is that she still refused me leave to speak. The question must be asked, how can one appeal against something when one is refused leave to speak on it? This action by Judge Palin cannot represent justice and most certainly requires an explanation? That court appearance was a waste of our time because neither Shirley Carr or ourselves had submitted any arguments relative to appeal, but had only submitted them in the action to show cause. I believe that this would have been extremely apparent to Judge Palin, yet still she refused to let me speak.
I feel there are a number of circumstances which may have been singly or collectively responsible for Judge Palin's extremely hostile attitude towards me, and I think it would be right that I should include then here.
On July 5th 1996 Circuit Judge Helen Palin sentenced me to three months imprisonment for alleged contempt of court. Shirley Carr was the applicant in that Committal application. I was represented at that application hearing by Counsel. When my wife and I arrived at the Newcastle Court on July 5th 1996, Counsel informed us that because of Helen Palin's reputation for harsh sentencing, it was considered that I should not present an argument over the matters that had brought me to that situation, and that I should simply accept that I had breached the injunction which was instrumental to that committal hearing. Counsel considered that to put forward an argument at those proceedings would possibly have been even more detrimental to me.
District Judge Cuthbertson had granted Shirley Carr an injunction on October 17 1995, that injunction was so far reaching it effectively prevented me from collecting further evidence for use in my actions and defence in cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. The circumstances of how the injunction was granted was certainly improper. Counsel for Shirley Carr, a Mr. Merritt, agreed to Judge Palin that the injunction which was to be instrumental in my imprisonment had been granted in what he termed,
" unusual circumstances" but declined to add the subject matter of those unusual circumstances. Those circumstances are described in the affidavit of my wife, Joyce Kellett, a copy of which I enclose here. On June 6th 1997 I raised the matter of the circumstances under which that injunction had been granted while I was before Lord Justice Pil and Auld, they said that they did not intend to comment on the matter.
At my commital hearing on July 5th 1996, which I believe lasted for probably no more than twenty minutes, a transcript of a tape recording was produced as evidence by Shirley Carr. The tape recording from which the transcript had been made, of which I have a copy, shows signs of editing, which in fact it had certainly been subject of editing. Judge Palin made a number of remarks at that committal hearing and my subsequent appearance before her on August 13 which I found highly offensive, and I find that her idea of justice would seem to be far detached from my own.
On July 5th 1996 Helen Palin sentenced me to three months imprisonment for contempt of court. The application arose following Shirley Carr making a complaint to the Public health Authority about my two dogs barking. The following morning after I had been served with notice of the complaint by the Authority, I heard scratching noises on the fence adjoining my property and that of Shirley Carr's, my two dogs reacted to that scratching by barking. I ignored the scratching until it was apparent that it was a deliberate act to make my dogs bark. When I placed a ladder to enable me to look over the fence, I saw that Shirley Carr and her present boyfriend, Mr. Norman Pringle had set up a tape recorder to record my dogs barking while Shirley Carr was at the fence making the scratching noises.
I reacted I believe the same way that most ordinary people would have reacted and although the injunction which was so improperly granted by District judge Cuthbertson was to prevent me from speaking to Shirley Carr or her present boyfriend, and many others, after months of sustained attempts to have me break that improper injunction, I finally succumbed to that provocation. On two previous occasions I had requested that police attend my home when it was apparent that Shirley Carr and Norman Pringles provocative actions were meant to provoke me into breaching the improper injunction that was granted by District Judge Cuthbertson.
On my subsequent committal to Durham Prison on Friday July 5th 1996, I informed the Prison Authority that as a protest at the injustice that I had suffered at the hands of Judges Cuthbertson and Palin, I would not take food, water, or medication. That medication includes chemotherapy, medication for diabetes, and for hypertension, in addition medication for pain as a result of severe pain that I have as a result of Rheumatoid Arthritis. I understand that I was found unconscious in a cell in the early hours of Monday July 8 1997. I regained consciousness to find myself chained to a bed at Dryburn Hospital, Durham. I had a drip feed attached to my arm, and severe bruising on my arm showed that I had earlier received some injections. It was said that I had suffered a stoke which had probably been induced by the circumstances of my imprisonment and my subsequent protest at injustice.
The following day, an appeal was to be heard at the London Court of Appeal against the sentence imposed by Judge Helen Palin. Alison Stott Solicitor then sent a fax letter concerning me to the appeal court which read,
" From my clients knowledge he is not of previous good character and has been bound over to keep the peace".
This was among the numerous lies used by Shirley Carr in her attempts to beat justice. I have never at any time been bound over by any court, and those who know me most certainly do not consider that I am not of previous good character. Police have provided a certificate to show that I have no criminal record whatsoever. Previously Shirley Carr had sworn that I had taken an overdose and had received treatment at Cherry Knowle Mental Hospital which was again extremely malicious and untrue. For use in a further action by me, Cherry Knowle Hospital have verified by letter that I have never received treatment at that hospital , District Judge Cuthbertson said that he had seen Shirley Carr's sworn statement relative to her allegation that I had received treatment at Cherry Knowle and advised that I should not proceed with any action regarding it until the duration of cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. He had however failed to add that the limitation period in which to take action in circumstances of Libel was only three years.
I was released by order of the London Appeal Court and the sentence was reduced to one of three months suspended prison sentence. It would seem that their Lords Justices agreed that the sentence imposed by Judge Helen Palin was too severe, despite them having been wrongly informed that I was not of previous good character and had been bound over to keep the peace.
In my affidavit which I swore at the Sunderland County Court on August 13 1997, I highlighted the fact that although the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding had said that he had not looked at the Statutory Declarations that had been used to lodge a caution at H.M. Land Registry relative to the disputed land. He had in fact four copies of one which had been sworn by a Mr. Paul Graney solicitor giving false information, which had been used in the registering of a caution at the land Registry. He also had four copies of an affidavit sworn by Mr. Graney following an approach having been made to him with evidence to show that he had sworn that false information. In his affidavit, Mr. Graney claimed that it was the predecessors in title to Shirley Carr's property, the Greens, who had provided him with that false information, but circumstances make it clear that Mr. Graney could not have been other than aware at the time he swore that false information that it was indeed false. By Mr. Fryer Spedding saying that he had not looked at those Statutory Declarations which had been used to lodge the caution at H.M. Land Registry, though Mr. Graney's Statutory Declaration had been placed in quadruple before him for use in evidence, he effectively bypassed the fact that material false information had been sworn in support of the lodging of a caution at the Land Registry, which is of course a misdemeanour and a criminal act. Though Mr. Fryer Spedding alleged that he had not looked at those Statutory Declarations, he said in his judgement that they were "the usual statutory declarations", which of course Mr. Paul Graney solicitor's was not as evidence which had been submitted before Mr Fryer Spedding, again in quadruple, clearly proved that. In these circumstances the deception that had been practised by the solicitor Paul Graney and the predecessors of Shirley Carr's property, the Greens was clearly proved by the contents of the affidavit that was sworn by Mr. Paul Graney. I believe that there will be no difficulty in also being able to show that Shirley Carr has also been party to that deception.
In addition I included in my affidavit the fact following my cross examination of Shirley Carr that she had sworn two contrary statements during that cross examination of her during proceedings before the former Mr. Fryer Spedding. When I highlighted that fact the former Recorder warned me not to do that as I would not gain by doing it, which was of course a gross breach of my rights of cross examination. Shirley Carr had clearly committed perjury in the proceedings, but Mr. Fryer Spedding took no action whatsoever on that.
I had included the above facts, and a number of others concerning Mr. Fryer Spedding in my affidavit that I swore on August 13th. Perhaps Judge Palin's extremely hostile reaction to me was as result of the Appeal Court over ruling her judgement of July 5th 1996, or as a result that I have been able to show in my affidavit of August 13th that judges too can be guilty of not telling the truth so as to be able to satisfy their reasons for judgement? It would, I think, be reasonable to suggest that Judge Palin would be acquainted with the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding, and my action of exposing some of his acts could therefore be another explanation for her hostility towards me?
I consider that Circuit Judge Palin's manner, attitude, and the fact that she refused me leave to speak at that hearing of August 13, which she said was an appeal, to have been
a gross breach of my rights, and that she had exceeded her own rights and privilege as a Judge by acting in the manner that she did.
The Court Usher told us that Helen Palin is a good judge, by my opinion of a good judge is one who listens to the parties and then decides, not one who refuses the right for a party to speak at an appeal. How can an appeal be an appeal if the right to state ones reasons for appeal is refused?
In the circumstances which I describe, I would further request that the following additional information be provided to me.
1. Who was responsible for listing the hearing for three hours when it took only around five minutes?
2. Can it be confirmed that Judge Palin had in fact read the contents of my affidavit of August 13th 1997 which I understand was handed to her?
3. Were those proceedings before Judge Palin on August 13 1997 recorded in any way?
4. The Court Usher told me to sit at the side nearest to the entrance to the courtroom, which is on the left side of the judge. I said that as we were the Plaintiff's, I believed that it was practice that we should sit at the right hand side of the judge, I was told that I was wrong, and we remained at the left side of Judge Palin. Can you therefore confirm that the Plaintiff's position in court is normally at the left side of the judge ?
Mr. M. Kellett.
Any E-mail please to: Justice@jiwalu,demon.co.uk
Back to opening page
Back to page index