|
|
A LETTER OF THE SAME DATE AND SIMILAR CONTENT AS BELOW HAS ALSO BEEN SENT TO LORD JUSTICE PILL.
Lord Justice Auld, 16A The Lyons,
Royal Courts of Justice, Hetton-le-Hole,
The Strand, Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT.
London.
COPIED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to all interested persons
My ref: LIP/MK/09
26 March 1999
Dear Sir,
I write in connection with a judgement that yourself and Lord Justice Pill made on 6th June 1997 relative to cases DH400950, DH400898, and NE401650. The cases had been tried as a consolidated action at The Newcastle County Court before former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding. On 1st June 1994 an Order had been made by District Judge Scott-Phillips refusing consolidation of the cases. The application had been made by my civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr. It was she, who without the knowledge or authority of the Court had prepared the Judges Bundle. In July 1997 Miss Carr agreed that she had deliberately left out documentation from the Judges Bundle that had included her application to, and refusal by The Durham County Court for consolidation of the three cases.
In 1995 District Judge Scott-Phillips had given the work of preparing the Judges Bundle to solicitor Alison Stott who was attending The Durham County Court with Miss Shirley Carr at that time. On 17th January 1996 Alison Stott declared to the Newcastle County Court: " I have not been acting for Miss Carr, I have only been assisting her as she seems to have a good grasp of the situation". The reply which came from the former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding was, "You are either acting for Miss Carr or you are not". Alison Stott replied to him, "Well I am now Sir". The circumstances and facts of that declaration, supported by affidavits, had been included in the bundles that we sent to you for use in my application for leave to appeal. In attendance at the Court when Alison Stott made the declaration of which I refer were, former Recorder John H.Fryer-Spedding, Counsel acting for me Michelle Temple, Shirley Carr, my wife Joyce Kellett and I. Initially The Court of Appeal could not find those bundles which I sent for your use in my application for leave to appeal because they could not be found in the file room where normally they would be held. I even received a letter from the Court saying that unless they received the bundles forthwith my application was to be listed for dismissal. Where those files were, and who held them still remains unanswered. There is now some speculation however as to where they may have been at that time.
It is now confirmed by solicitor Alison Stott that when she was given the work of preparing the Judges Bundle, she secretly passed on that work for Shirley Carr to Carry out. The fact that she knew at that time she was not acting for Miss Carr, is I think proved by her act of passing on that work to her. As I have written, Carr then excluded very relevant documentation from the Judges Bundle. In 1997 she claimed that she did not think that the Order made on 1st June 1994 refusing consolidation of the cases was important. It was however important enough for her to have made an application to the Durham County Court for it in 1994. I was not in a position to verify the full extent of the documentation Carr excluded from the Judges Bundle because my files appertaining to the period of 1994 were held by lien by solicitor Nancy Bone, who has since been struck from the Register and her business closed down.
In addition, on 17th October 1995 Alison Stott attended The Durham County Court with Shirley Carr. Shirley Carr's application for an injunction to prevent me from taking further evidence was heard before District Judge Cuthbertson on that day. Though by her own admission confirmed by her declaration that she made to The Newcastle County Court on 17th January 1996, she was not "acting" at that time for Carr, still she accepted work from Mr Cuthbertson. In the circumstances that arose, an injunction was unlawfully granted after proceedings relative to the application for it had been adjourned and I had not been informed when the hearing was to recommence. Later I was imprisoned at Durham by means of that injunction and subsequently suffered a stroke. I tried to raise this matter while I was before you and Mr Justice Pill on June 6 1997, but you would not hear me out. There is also the additional fact which was I consider was unjust. There were clearly three cases at issue as an Order had been made refusing consolidation of the cases. The time that I was allowed to present my arguments before you for leave to appeal was that allowed for only one case. Mr. John H. Fryer-Spedding's approved Transcript of Judgement confirms in the very first line that he tried the three cases as a consolidated action where I was then referred to as the defendant in all three actions. In fact I was the plaintiff in two out of those three actions. I had prepared my cases and defence as if they were to be tried one after the other.
Despite both Miss Carr and solicitor Alison Stott being fully aware that the cases had been wrongly tried as a consolidated action, and were in the knowledge that Carr had deliberately excluded the 1st June 1994 Order refusing consolidation of the cases, they still kept these facts from the Court. There can be little argument that this other act was a furtherance of the original fraud and deception that they had already used.
In addition there is the question remaining as to why John H. Fryer-Spedding lied, concocted false stories, allowed Miss Carr the liberal use of perjury and himself made one statement very contrary to Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925. Mr. Fryer-Spedding's approved transcript of judgement confirms that he agreed there had been a right of way to access the rear of this property 16A the Lyons, via the land subject of dispute and the rear garden of the property owned by Miss Carr. He falsely alleged that although that situation had existed, it came to an end when that right was not included in the conveyance of the property No. 16 The Lyons to Miss Carr. Section 62 of The Law of Property Act applies to every conveyance of property taking place in this country. That Section of law declares that at the time of the conveyance of property all existing rights, easements, privileges… etc are deemed to be conveyed with the property. Indeed there is no doubt that Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925 was specifically intended to protect the rights of a purchaser of property under circumstances where such rights had been excluded in the conveyance of such property.
The trials (which by means of the fraud I detail became a trial) had been adjourned to allow time to find a judge with Chancery experience. Is it conceivable that a Judge with Chancery experience was unaware of Section 62 of The Law of Property Act 1925? I cannot accept that such a Judge as the former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding with alleged Chancery experience was unaware of the Act of which I refer when it is shown that even the average solicitor is fully familiar with that Section of law.
More of the former Recorder's corrupt acts are detailed and shown by evidence in my affidavits. One was sworn on 13th August 1997 and submitted under case DH604359 and the other sworn 4 November 1997 and was submitted in cases DH400950 and DH400898. Both affidavits contain evidence to back up the allegations that I make against the former Recorder. In the circumstances, as you have been made aware of, I have had little option but to declare the judgement of former John H. Fryer-Spedding as void. All judgements following, and arising out of the corrupt judgement of the former Recorder must of course also must also be deemed void.
By my having little option but to declare these judgements avoid, I place myself in some considerable danger. Nonetheless justice shall prevail whether or not I have to pay the ultimate price for it.
You may or may not recall that in the summing up of your ruling that I would not be allowed leave to appeal the corrupt judgement of the former Recorder, the subject of Freemasonry was forefront in that summing up. You were also aware that I had been thanked by the Right Honourable Lord Nolan in May of 1996 for a dossier that I supplied to him that was used by The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary.
Under the rules and principles of justice of possible "Conflicts of Interests" I therefore require that you declare any past or present membership of Freemasonry. I think in the interests of justice that you should also declare whether or not you have attended at any time any Masonic Hall or Temple.
I proceed under the ruling of the late Very Right Honourable Lord Denning who ruled in 1956 that no Order of a Court can stand if it has been obtained by fraud. I feel sure that you will be familiar with that ruling? If necessary I can supply you with the case number and circumstances under which he made that ruling. His ruling does of course still stand. I thank God that such a man has influenced the justice system here in the United Kingdom.
I ask that you reply to the matters which I raise herein as early as possible. Two weeks ago as a furtherance of the original fraud I was declared bankrupt. The corrupt former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding had ruled that I was to pay five sixths of all costs amounting to some £15,800. As I am unable to pay this amount, and indeed would refuse to pay it anyway by reason that the bankruptcy Order was obtained by fraud, deception., and corruption, then I shall defend by all means at my disposal any moves made against me in furtherance of the original fraud that has already taken place to place me in my present situation. The Holy Bible says " You shall be judged as you judge". If you are a Christian minded person you will acknowledge this? If you are not a Christian minded person then I do not acknowledge your position and may God have mercy upon you.
Yours sincerely
Mr M. Kellett.
-------------------------
Contents of reply from Lord Justice Auld via R.A. Venne, Head of the Civil Appeals Office.
Dear Sir
I refer to your letter of 26 March 1999 addressed to Lord Justice Auld. He has directed me to reply. I have to inform you that your proceedings before the court are now at an end and that, in any event, members of the court do not enter into correspondence with litigants who have appeared before them.
--------------------------------------------------------------
His presumtion that proceedings before the court are at an end is without foundation. Matters before the court are far from being ended. Only when Justice is done will that happen. A further approach with new evidence and also evidence to show that the former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding lied, concocted false stories, allowed my civil law opponent the liberal use of perjury, and made statements while giving judgement that were contrary to facts law. No judge is allowed to do that and while those who sit in high places continue to protect one of their corrupt number, they only demonstate their own real personal character.
Any E-mail please to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk