|
|
Mr J. J. Death, 16a, The Lyons,
Magistrates Courts Division, Hetton-le-Hole,
Lord Chancellors Department, Tyne-Wear DH5 OHT.
Trevelyan House,
Great Peter Street, Your ref: C92/1232/3
London SW1P 2BY. My ref: Justice.
Date 2-1-93
Dear Mr Death
Thank you for your letter dated 16-12-92, which it seems is your reply to the letter I wrote to the Prime Minister dated 2-9-92.
I am astonished at your reply, as it seems you have totally missed the point that I make. In your reply you make reference to magistrates, yet, there was only one such magistrate, the other magistrate that sat on the bench that day was one William Moseley who on the same evening told me that he could not sit in judgement because he was aquainted with both myself and my assailant Robert Willis Gardener Pringle, who also appeared in the court with me charged with criminal assault. My letter to the Prime Minister makes this fact very clear.
In your final paragraph you reply "as to your point about the identity of the magistrates who sat on your case", I now begin to wonder which letter you have read because my interest was not one of wishing to know the identity of the magistrate (singular) concerned, but more particulary aquestion of whether or not he was a stipendairy magistrate for which I believe he was not, and, this being so, implies to me that a trial as such could not have gone ahead. This leads on to the point that this being the case, then why did Mr Moseley, a social aquaintance of my assailant, situpon the bench on the court appearance in question ? I have been made aware of the fact that he would have had plenty of prior notice of the appearance of myself and Pringle, why, when he knew he could not sit in judgement on our cases did he still appear on the bench obviously aware that there was only one other magistrate present ? Mr Moseley would, I feel sure, have been aware as to whether his fellow magistrate had any special qualifications to enable the matter to proceed. As it seems to me that no trial could have taken place, then I am only left with theconclusion that the outcome of our appearances had already been pre-decided ? A matter in which justice surely plays no part ?
I would also wish to know why the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the case in court ? to date this question has been avoided. I was brutally assaulted by Pringle on my own land after I had requested that he stop damaging trees belonging to me. The events which took place afterwards could only lead me to the conclusion that Pringle was given assistance above and beyond the call of duty by persons concerned in the matter in an official capacity. The circumstances of my complaints against the police have only re-enforced my belief. That which took place at Houghton Magistrates Court was, I further believe, not within the bounds of that which I associate with justice, and your reply to my letter has still not answered any of the questions I ask, I am, to say again, astonished at your reply mainly because it has in effect not answered any of my questions.
In my letter to the Prime Minister I mentioned the fact that the other magistrate William Moseley was a regular visitor to our local Masonic Hall, my assailant has or had links with the masonic movement, my enquiries over the last few years have convinced me that masonic involvement within the system of justice, from police, solicitors, and now I firmly believe, the judiciary, is substantial, and I have to wonder whether a member of such a movement could dispense the system of law in such a way that would not infringe his association with that movement, that which has and I believe probably still is taking place, again, only leads me to believe that members of such a movement are undesirable when it comes to the administration of law and justice. You have not replied to the other matters I raised in my letter to the Prime Minister, are these also to remain unanswered ?, or is someone else dealing with these ?.
Despite advice, and warnings, not to mention freemasonry in connection with matters at hand, I have to say that I firmly believe that members of that organisation have, and again, probably still have had a hand in "closing of ranks" against me, as a police inspector had warned me. I am continuing to enquire as to the extent of masonic involvement within authority, and will so continue until I am satisfied that membership of freemasonary within such authority is purely coincidental. I am concerned as to my possible fate, but not afraid of it.
In the last paragraph of your letter you state "save that a clerk to the justices may act with justification in refusing to give the name of a justice to a person who the clerk reasonably believes requires that information solely for a mischievous purpose", to clarify again, my question was not concerned with the name of the one magistrate sitting, but whether he was or was not qualified to sit in judgement in singular capacity ? From this quote, am to accept this as the reason the clerk to the justices did not reply to my enquiries ? If so then it would appear to me that your reply requires further clarification. An enquiry such as that I made of the clerk to the court was justified in determining whether or not matters of law in relation to court procedure had been broken, if the word "mischievous" is being substituted then so be it, if seeking justice is interpreted as mischievous then you can use such a substitution, though in my mind to use such a word is only serving to twist the situation further from that which others have already twisted far enough, such now appears to be the order of things. I await your reply before proceeding further, and hope that such reply will not take nearly the four months that your initial reply has taken, and further, that your reply might relate only to the questions I put to you.
Yours faithfully
Mr M. Kellett
----------------------------
Mr. J.J. Death did not reply to this letter.
Links:
Please send any E-mail to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk