Like many of Irvine's employees Miss Jones showed that she would do anything to carry out Irvine's orders. All the time Irvine was hiding behind a woman skirt such as that worn by Miss Jones. He is unfit to hold his office.
Miss E. Morgan Jones, 16A The Lyons,
The Lord Chancellors Department, Hetton-le-Hole,
Selbourne House, Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT.
54-60 Victoria Street,
London SW1E 6QW.
E-mail address: www.open.gov.uk/lcd
Your reference C98/697/0
11th February 1999.
Dear Miss Jones,
I have received your letter of 9th February 1999. You write that my letter to The Prime Minister of 11th December 1998 has been passed to your Department for a response. You enclose with your letter a copy of a letter that you sent me dated 16th December 1998. I have only just found that letter as it was stuck to the inside of the packaging of the video film which you returned to me, and it had not seen until I examined it this morning.
I now have your letter of 16th December before me and I reply to it as follows:
You write: " Your recent letter and those on file have been considered carefully, however there is little that I can usefully add to the previous correspondence that you have received from this department".
If your department is not as you write empowered to deal with the nature of my complaint surely it should not have been forwarded on to you for a response?
You write: "As I explained in my letter of 7 December, we are only able to make enquiries about complaints concerning the personal conduct of a member of the judiciary"
Is it not clear Miss Jones that the personal conduct of any member of the judiciary must surely take into account whether he or she had lied or whether there were grounds for misconduct in Public Office? Surely you will also agree that these matters do come under the category of "personal conduct?". The evidence that I have provided to the Master of the Rolls Lords Woolf, Lord Chief Justice Bingham, and Lord Chancellor Irvine, and Home Secretary Straw shows that former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding lied, concocted false stories, and allowed my opponent the liberal use of perjury, along with other things which were almost certainly to fabricate grounds to rule against me. Surely these matters do come under the category of "personal conduct"? He went into sudden retirement when I reported some of his vile acts to former Lord Chancellor Mackay and Mr Abley, a clerk of the Newcastle County Court told me that they were having some difficulty in contacting him.
You write: "Your concerns about the conduct of Her Honour Judge Hellen Paling were dealt with in Mr Willinks letter to you of 31 January 1998." I do not accept the explanation that was offered by Mr Willink. The hearing before Judge Paling was for the purpose of Appeal. When a person conducting that Appeal is ordered by Judge Paling not to speak or face imprisonment, that makes a complete farce of British Justice. It was alleged that the hearing before Judge Paling was not an Appeal. Even my opponent in the litigation, the same one who Mr Fryer-Spedding allowed her the liberal use of perjury, Shirley Carr, and I were in full agreement that we were there for the purpose of the Appeal being heard before Judge Paling. The time allocated for it was three hours but it took less than five minutes for Helen Paling to direct her verbal onslaught at me and conclude the hearing. It was my right to have been allowed to speak but that was denied to me. That was not justice at work that was a clear abuse of power.
You write: " The matters that you raise concerning the now retired Recorder Fryer-Spedding involve his decision and decision making process".
I think that you are playing with words Miss Jones. The matters that I raise are to do with his conduct, whereby he lied, concocted false stories and allowed Miss Carr the liberal use of perjury. Surely you again must agree this comes under the heading of "conduct"? The evidence for my allegations has been provided to those I name herein. I have either lied in the one hundred and thirty pages or so of my affidavits with exhibits, that I have supplied to those I mention, in which case I am guilty of perjury, or those I name are ignoring the truth and become accessories after the fact. No man Miss Jones is above the law, and this also includes those in high office.
You write: "the Lord Chancellor has no power to review a judge's decision ".
I am not asking that Lord Irvine reviews a judge's decision, but to look at the evidence which I provided, at some considerable expense for his examination, to show that Recorder John Fryer-Spedding did indeed carry out those things which I allege. Is it too difficult for him to admit that a man for whom he has responsibility, carried out those acts? There is no judge's decision to be considered here Miss Jones. His judgement became null and void the minute that vile man, former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding decided to carry out the acts of which I allege. Any judge who carries out the acts of which I have reported to Lord Irvine and others, steps outside the protection of his highly paid employment when he stoops to such low levels. A judge is paid to carry out justice not injustice. John Fryer-Spedding clearly over stepped his position by stooping to gutter tactics to destroy both my own cases and defence. I do attribute his vile acts to the Masonic mafia who most certainly infest and rule the English Courts.
You write: "Mr. Willink also addressed your concerns about Freemasonry in the judiciary, explaining that the recent government report found no evidence that Freemasonry exerted an improper influence on the conduct of the judiciary".
Counsel for my opponent Miss Carr, Mr. Merrit introduced my "arguments with Freemasons" into proceedings before the corrupt John Fryer-Spedding. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues to be judged. Despite my protests, he allowed the subject to be raised. Can you offer an explanation why you think this subject was raised in those proceedings? While I have been offered a possible explanation, can you add your own when the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee are not empowered to examine specific complaints with regard to Freemasonry. I am sure that Liz Booth, Secretary to the Committee will confirm this to you. I cannot accept that a full and in depth enquiry into the subject would not have revealed the real truth that Freemasonry has a strangle hold over the system of the British Justice System. I am certain that Lords Irvine and Woolf are fully aware of this fact. By failing to act on it they only raise suspicions that they are part of it and in the circumstances of failing to act on the considerable evidence that I have supplied to them to back up my allegations against John Fryer-Spedding I would suggest that they are both involved in this corruption.
Your own department, assisted by a Mr. J.J. Death was responsible in covering up illegal proceedings twelve and a half years ago at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court after I had been battered and struck by a car that was driven at me. Freemasonry was involved in that matter. Mr. William Moseley, Freemason magistrate a very close friend of the man who carried out that assault on me sat at bench on the day the matter was heard. He later alleged he had stood down by reason that he was acquainted with both myself and Pringle my assailant. The remaining magistrate was required by law to be a Stipendairy Magistrate. He held no such qualification. The Clerk to the justices at that Court, Mr. Bavidge, who still holds this same position today, also helped cover up that matter when he wrote to me saying that as the magistrate was away on holiday, he had been unable to contact him to find out if he held the qualification of Stipendairy Magistate. He knew well at that time that magistrate was not qualified to act alone.
You write: "You may know that the Government is in the process of compiling a public Register about the Masonic Status of judges, but this is not yet available for public viewing".
I am aware of this but I am also aware of the delay that there is in compiling this Register. We dont have one hundred thousand judges so surely the time being taken to draw up the Register is excesive. Could it be there are so many judges who dont want to sign the Register because they fear the truth of possible past injustice carried out by them, may then be seen as the link to their Masonic Brothers? I am also aware that new members of the Police Forces are required to declare any membership of Freemasonry upon joining the police. The public interest demands that all policemen declare membership of Freemasonry, not just those new recruits into the police forces. I think it true to say that if all policemen were required to declare such Masonic interests the public would immediately see that there is a problem that the world's largest Secret Society also infests the British Police as well. I might add here, in a long conversation some two years ago with a member of the Cleveland Police Authority, he agreed there was only to be minimal action against those new policemen who failed to declare such interest in Freemasonry. In other words a Register without teeth.
You write: "Freemasonry membership is still considered a personal matter, and it is for the judge concerned to decide how to respond. However, it is not intended that the establishment of a public register containing such information will give litigants the right to require a judge to step down from a case on the basis that he is a Freemason. It will remain solely a matter for the judge concerned to decide, in accordance with law and practice, whether to stand down in the particular circumstances of any case."
Perhaps these same rules should be allowed for those who are gang members where secrecy is also imperative if they are not to be found out?
Freemasonry is not a personal matter when it clearly conflicts with the public interest and it therefore should not under any circumstances be left to the individual judge whether or not to declare such membership of it. Justice demands that a judge should declare member ship of any Secret Society. Is it likely in these circumstances that any judge would readily declare such membership of Freemasonry? Basic common sense suggests they will not.
When I approached Lords Woolf and Bingham on the matter I placed before them I was informed by letter that they had discussed it and decided that it should be left to the individual judge whether or not to declare membership of Freemasonry. I do not under any circumstances accept their ruling. My reasons for this are that their Lords surely have heard of "conflicts of public interest"? It would seem in the matter of Freemasonry they have rather conveniently chosen to ignore this? Where a question of any conflict of public interest lies, be it Freemasonry or any other subject, that conflict must be addressed whether a man chooses to wear a Masonic apron and bear his chest or not. Their ruling in my opinion, sets Freemasonry above the ordinary accepted rules governing the administration of justice and the requisite declaration of interests when there are such interests called into question.
I would also draw to your attention the massive number of lawyers who are also Freemasons. I suppose it can be understood if one considers that the chances of a non Freemason solicitor successfully acting for someone would be substantially less in cases where the judge is a Freemason, which I would suggest are many. Although in my understanding Solicitors are regarded as officers of the Courts with rights far above litigants in person, and they certainly are very important when issues of justice are to be decided, there has been no move whatsoever to consider their position with regard to Freemasonry. I would hasten to add that the Justice System demands that it rids itself of all Secret Societies. A Register for Freemasons should be set up for ALL those involved in the Justice System. Then I feel that the clutches that the Masonic Mafia now hold over our legal system would be loosened when their cover would then be exposed. Their secret words, movements, handshakes etc. would be of little assistance to them.
There also arises the question which I have already asked of them, which is, are their Lords Bingham, Woolf, and Irvine prepared to declare whether or not they are themselves Freemasons? Under the rules of conflicts of public interest, they themselves become exempt from any decision making process concerning matters of Freemasonry should they be such members of it. I am very sure that their Lords are aware that the Brotherhood of Freemasons swear an oath to assist in any way possible their fellow Masons. Clearly if two litigants go before a judge who is a member of the Freemasons, and one of those litigants is also a mason, is he not duty bound by the oaths he has sworn to Freemasonry to help his brother mason whether his prospects in the case are good or bad?
I would add these facts too Miss Jones. A few months before I went before the corrupt former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding, I received a letter of thanks from the Secretary for the Rt. Hon. Lord Nolan expressing his thanks for a dossier which I sent to him on matters appertaining to Freemasonry here in North East England. I understand it was used by The Home Affairs House of Commons Select Committee enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. That became common knowledge certainly at least in Masonic circles here. I am a member of my local Council and I was told by another fellow Council member, who describes himself as a " Master Freemason" that they would not allow me to continue to investigate their movement. He also said that should the government try to legislate against Freemasonry they would make trouble for it. I think this demonstrates just how powerful Freemasonry believes it now is.
I draw your attention to the Private Members Secret Societies Declaration Bill introduced nearly five years ago by Chris Mullin MP. As you will be aware it failed to become law. It would have protected the British Public as a whole against all Secret Societies. Over the last few years I have contacted Chris Mullin many times and have provided him with documentation which I had hoped would assist him in making a decision to re-introduce his Bill before Parliament. He informed me some years ago that he would do that. This has not of course happened. We now have a New Labour Government in power now, surely the Bill might have more chance of success now? Mr Mullin wrote to tell me that in The House of Commons there is a Masonic Lodge for the Press Gallery and for the Members of Parliament themselves. My small amount of involvement with local government suggests none other than many Members of Parliament are likely to be Freemasons and are effectively sponsored by Freemasonry to help them reach those positions of power.
I am about to be made bankrupt by my civil opponent in respect of £15,800 alleged Court costs in the litigation. She, Miss Shirley Carr, was the same one who was allowed by the former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding to use liberal amounts of perjury and he assisted it by the use of his own lies etc. I cannot under any circumstances accept the judgement of a man who has carried out his vile acts against me and indeed my wife. I do not accept that the judgement of any man is valid when it is shown by evidence that he carried out the acts of which I allege. It is in breach of all commonly accepted principles of justice which those in high office, and I specifically name Lords Woolf, Bingham, Irvine, and Home Secretary Straw are bound to uphold if they are honourable men.
In these circumstances, if the Lord Chancellor cannot act when a judge over whom he has a responsibility in the public interest , carries out the vile acts of which I have not only detailed to him, but have also supplied indisputable evidence to back up my allegations, then I must hold him directly responsible for the situation in which I find myself. He employed the man and therefore he has a liability in the matter.
I hold Lord Irvine responsible for the £15,800 alleged Court costs. After all it is only a little less than the cost of two rolls of wallpaper which he purchased at public expense to decorate his apartment. There were of course more than two rolls of wallpaper used. That sort of cost involved only the pleasing of his eyes. Despite his statement to Parliament that the wallpaper would last I think it was fifty or sixty years, I wonder if Lord Irvine had considered that the next Lord Chancellor or his wife might hate his taste in décor and have the whole lot stripped off and have the walls papered with wallpaper purchased from the local DIY store? Would that not then be a public waste? The costs presently being levelled at me are far more serious and concern whether or not I end up with a roof over my head.
I therefore request that you contact the Lord Chancellor and have him verify that he has examined the affidavits and evidence that I sent for his examination. This has to be my basic right as a starting point to my continuing action to try to obtain justice. If the information and evidence contained in the one hundred and thirty pages or so of affidavits I supplied to their Lords is untrue, then I would ask that the Lord Chancellor commences action against me for perjury. All judges are duty bound to act where it can be shown that perjury has been at work. When it can be shown that a Judge such as former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding has taken action which has resulted in the perversion of the course of justice, as suggested by a police officer, Sergeant Urquahart, is it not in the public interest that he should be brought to trial for his act and that any judgement made by him in those circumstances should be dismissed? By protecting such vile men would it not be reasonable to suggest that there is therefore no deterrent against it?
I bring to your attention the recent case (case A980087) of Regina -v- Mr. Geoffrey Harold Scriven of Warrington. In his affidavit of 17th December 1998 Mr. Scriven swears:
2. This appeal is made, IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, to expose and deal with corruption in the Civil and Criminal Judicial System,( in this instance, in the North West of England), by a legal and Judicial Mafia, WHO SYSTEMATICALLY COMMENCE FRAUDULENT PROCEEDINGS, in the Courts, and rely on the systemically corrupt judiciary they have bribed over the years, thus forcing them to acquiesce, condone, turn "a blind eye", to misconduct in Public Office; Regina -v- Dytham CA, CR DIV, 9th 18th July 1979; (before the Lord Chief Justice and two Lords Justice). THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE WAS VERY CLEAR OF SUCH MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND DEGREE THEREOF, BEING DEALT WITH BY A JURY; THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE REFERRED SPECIFICALLY TO THE CHARGE AS, "MISCONDUCT OF AN OFFICER OF JUSTICE".
3. Litigants "targeted" by the Mafia, are subject to fraudulent bogus hearings generating bogus orders and bogus costs orders, which are taxed by Mafia Judges and then passed to Mafia Solicitors, (frequently, Solicitors Indemnity Fund Representatives), who compile bogus Statutory demands which are "rubber stamped" by Mafia Judges, to bankrupt the "Target", thereafter, the proceeds (monies and properties) are collected and distributed by the Mafia.
4. If the "Targeted Litigant" is Legally Aided, that is a plus for the Mafia, who then "loot" the Legal Aid Fund, (Public Money); if this "leaks-out", exposing the solicitor involved, the Solicitors Indemnity Fund quickly steps in to cover-up the Solicitors and blackmail the litigant into silence with a large payment, only handed over when the litigant has signed a "Confidentiality Agreement". (N.B. The Legal Aid Fund- is currently costing the Tax Payer, circa £1.6 Billion, and the Solicitors Indemnity Fund - " A Mutual Fund", is circa £0.5 billion in deficit).
8. The subject matter of this Appeal, i.e. criminal damage, arises directly out of the fraudulent, backdated document used by the Mafia to "lock" into just one of their unlawful, criminal cases which are used Nationally, on a daily basis, to defraud members of the public, stealing monies and property on an enormous scale, within a Judicial System which they have totally corrupted, with the full knowledge and assistance of the Highest Judges in the land, who are the greatest financial beneficiaries of this National scandal. The Rt. Hon. Lord Denning, in his Jubilee Presidential address to the Holdsworth Club, "Restraining the misuse of power", described the modus operandii of the corruption, naming two corrupt Lord Chancellors.
9. The arrest and prosecution of the appellant by the Police and DPP/CPS, is absolutely malicious. Both the Police and the DPP/CPS, knew all about the Mafia fraud from the beginning, several years ago, they are controlled by the "Godfathers" of the Mafia- The Lord Chancellor and The Master of The Rolls. It is unlikely that the report of an honest man-Ian Glidewell- or the appointment of a new DPP, will stop the corruption.
12. it should be noted that proceedings are in issue in the High Court, against the Lord Chancellor, Master of the Rolls Senior Law Lord and Treasury Solicitor alleging serious misconduct- "High Treason", for which an unlawful hearing took place in the Strand, after the Courts had closed and reporters/public off the premises, at 17.35pm; presided over by MJ Moses of Matrix Churchill fame. The defendants are abusing their power to hold this case, blocked within the Civil Appeals Office, - The Head of Civil Appeals is the Rolls.
13. On 4-12-98, in the Court of Appeal (Parker -v -Law Society), The Master of the Rolls and two colleges, L J.Hutchinson, and Tuckey, who are deeply implicated, tried to cover up their wrong doing, by abusing their power and committing high treason - perjury by Privy Councellors. They referred to the "Bench Memoranda" (previously referred to as "Case Summaries") - in reality the "secret briefing" had only been going for about two years, they know full well that they go back as long ago as 18-2-91 and possibly earlier. They also claimed the " Secret Briefings" were in general use, on 25-11-97 the Master of the Rolls, wrote (via his secretary N. Hodgson) that the "secret briefings" were only used against litigants in person.
THIS IS PERJURY BY THE HIGHEST JUDICIARY - WHICH IS HIGH TREASON BY PRIVY COUNCELLORS
I have spoken with Mr. Scrivens, a respected businessman, and I know that he is not the sort of man who would make wild allegations against the Mafia controlled Judiciary. Mr, Scriven's does not specifically mention "Masonic" Mafia but I feel sure that the Mafia of which he refers, does relate to the Masonic Mafia who infest the whole of the Legal System.
Now that I am aware of the "Secret Briefing" of Appeal Court Judges, this raises another matter. When I forwarded on the requisite files to The London Court of Appeal to seek leave to appeal the corrupt former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding's judgement, I received a letter informing me that the Court had not received those files and were to list my application for dismissal if the files were not forwarded post haste. It was agreed by court staff that my files were not where they should have been which was the courts file room. They surfaced when I produced a post recorded delivery slip of paper. The question is, where were my files while they were missing? Could I suggest the possibility that they were already in use for the purpose of secret briefing of Lords Justices Auld and Pill who were to hear my application for leave to appeal? I think it was Lord Justice Auld who spent a considerable amount of time in his summing up with attempts to persuade me that Freemasonry was not a consideration in the injustice which I was alleging. He and Lord Justice Pill did not allow me the full standard quota of time to argue my cases for leave to appeal. There were three cases at issue. I was allowed time to present my case for only one. I again think it was Lord Justice Auld who made a very sarcastic remark about the way I had conducted my argument for leave to appeal. It suggested that he had some prior knowledge of me before that appearance before him. Information given to me may suggest that Lord Justice Auld is also a Freemason in which case his ruling to becomes null and void. They refused me leave to appeal the vile former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding's corrupt judgement.
Perhaps Lord Chancellor Irvine can pay a visit to the Rt. Hon. Lord Denning who I am told has reached the ripe old age of one hundred. He may then learn a few lessons as to what justice is all about. The Rt. Hon. Lord Denning was indeed an honourable man when he ruled in the Lazerus case Jan 12,13,24, 1956,
"NO COURT IN THIS LAND WILL ALLOW A PERSON TO KEEP AN ADVANTAGE WHICH HE HAS GAINED BY FRAUD. NO JUDGEMENT OF A COURT, NO ORDER OF A MINISTER, CAN BE ALLOWED TO STAND IF IT HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY FRAUD. FRAUD UNRAVELS EVERYTHING".
This honourable mans ruling still stands and it is by such ruling that I proceed. I also proceed by the accepted principle, " no man is above the law".
I require that you convey the contents of this letter to Lord Irvine for his comments. I have been warned that a commonly accepted procedure in instances such as this is to bind a litigant by a Section 42 vexatious litigants Order. I can assure those concerned that such Order, were it to be granted, would not stop my pursuit for justice. It would only fuel it.
I also understood that my allegations were to be put before John Fryer-Spedding for him to offer an explanation for his actions. Is it possible that he still cannot be found?
I am not only being ordered to pay the costs, I have stood by and watched the legalised theft of land by Miss Carr. This is something which I shall not tolerate for too much longer whatever the cost may be to me. I warned L.J. Auld and Pill that I would not accept the corrupt orders made and would return back onto our land and if necessary die on. That is still my intention should the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls Lord Woolf continue to close a "blind eye" to the facts that have been put before them. By doing this they invite a confrontation of which I shall not back away from.
The stress brought about by the corruption involved in the five year litigation was instrumental in the recent destruction of my thirty year marriage. My wife wanted me to run away from the corruption we both suffered. I could not do that.
A man called at our home in November of 1997 and warned that unless I backed away from trying to expose Freemasonry then our home could be burnt down. The night previous to that I had been broadcasting on Local Radio some of my concerns regarding Freemasonry. When I reported that matter to Northumbria Police I was told that it was good advice. Coming from a Police force that I know is well and truly infested with Freemasonry, this sort of comment no longer surprises me.
Crucial files went missing from Smith and Graham Solicitors in Durham City, another solicitor refused to hand over my files and evidence when I found corruption with that firm as well. They have since been closed down. Another solicitor, Mr. Paul Graney of Houghton-le-Spring, swore false information on a Statutory Declaration that was connected with the issues. When confronted with the evidence to show his perjury, he agreed to swear an affidavit retracting it. Both of those documents were placed in quadruple before former Recorder John Fryer-Spedding. He alleged he had not looked at them but stated that they were the normal kind of Statutory Declarations used in applications to H.M. Land Registry. How could he make such a statement if he had not looked at them? How could he say they were the normal kind of Statutory Declarations when Mr Graney had by virtue of his affidavit, agreed the information he had sworn was untrue. Is that indeed "normal"?
We had the situation where Miss Carr was represented by her "assistant" Solicitor Alison Stott, of Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham City. Alison Stott acting only as an assistant, or McKenzies friend, was given the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial, she then passed on that work for Carr to carry out. She in turn excluded important documentation from the bundles. Part of that documentation included her application to The Durham County Court for consolidation of the three actions. On 1st June 1994 District Judge Scott-Phillips sitting at The Durham County Court ordered that the cases could not be consolidated into a single action where I was to become the Defendant in all cases. I was in fact the Plaintiff in two out of the three actions. Recorder John-Fryer Spedding tried the three actions as a consolidated action which caused me some problems.
Six weeks before the trial the Northern area Legal Aid Board withdrew legal aid from me by falsely alleging that the opinion of Counsel representing me, Michelle Temple, was not favourable to both my defence and prosecution. I have a copy of Michelle Temple's opinion and her opinion was very favourable to my success in the cases. Despite a letter of protest from my solicitor Mrs. P. Tench then of Jacksons Solicitors in Darlington, Co. Durham the Legal Aid Department listed my appeal against their decision for a date after the trial. I had partly expected that. At the outset the Board lied when they said that I already had an injunction to stop Carr from flooding our property. After I obtained a full copy of the application that was made to them for legal aid, there is no doubt whatsoever that they were aware that not only was there no injunction in place, but the object of the application was for help in trying to obtain that injunction.
This is not an exhaustive list of the stumbling blocks that were placed in my way but they serve to show that there had never been any intent that I would obtain justice. Without any hesitation whatsoever, I can say that there was a conspiracy against me to pervert the course of justice. I attach that conspiracy to the Masonic Mafia operating right throughout the British Legal System.
I ask that you place this letter before Lord Irvine for his action. Failing non action then I shall commence whatever action that I deem is necessary to obtain justice.
Mr. M. Kellett.
Go to links:
Go to page index
Go to opening page
Any E-mail please to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk