COPIED TO OTHERS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
The Chief Constable 16A The Lyons,
Northumbria Police, Hetton-le-Hole,
Ponteland Police Headquarters, Tyne-Wear DH5 OHT.
22 April 1999. My Ref: JWD/MK/LIP/ 001
I write in regard to a meeting which I had with your Inspector Atkinson at Washington Police Station on Tuesday 8 December 1998 from 2.40pm to 4.50pm.
I have made allegations about the use of fraud and deception that was carried out against me in civil proceeding lasting five years. The purpose of my meeting with Inspector Atkinson was to show him evidence of that fraud and deception and detail the general circumstances of how it was used. In a prior telephone conversation I had with Inspector Atkinson I made him aware that I believed that there was more than sufficient evidence to charge the former Recorder, Mr John H. Fryer-Spedding with Misconduct in Public Office as the evidence shows that he was a party to the fraud and deception of which I allege.
On arrival at Washington Police Headquarters, Inspector Atkinson told me that he had telephoned the Home Office who had instructed him not to take any action, as my allegations were in relation to proceedings in the civil courts. He did not in those circumstances examine any of the evidence which I placed before him. At this point I have to add that I fail to see where there should be any discrimination. As to whether fraud and deception and along with it the implication of acts having been carried out to pervert the course of justice, were committed in civil proceedings or criminal proceedings surely has no relevance? The use of fraud and deception to pervert the course of justice is surely a police matter and should and must be subject of investigation.
I have alleged that the former Recorder John H.Fryer-Spedding lied, concocted false stories, allowed my civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr the liberal use of perjury, and further, made statements not only extremely contrary to indisputable evidence that was placed before him, but also statements extremely contrary to Laws of Statute. Laws of which it is certain he would have been well acquainted. Following my having reported some his acts to former Lord Chancellor Mackay, Mr Fryer-Spedding went into what was certainly sudden retirement. I use the word "sudden" because there are circumstances which show that to be fact.
As a result of the fraud etc. used against me, a situation has clearly been engineered which has resulted in my having been declared bankrupt in regard to the Court costs involved. To concede bankruptcy while evidence shows that the trial before the former Recorder was illegal by means of the use of fraud etc, and further, by reason of fraud having been used in the ongoing proceedings before the Recorder, will effectively mean that I will then become party to the fraud etc. My conscience is clear and I shall not become party to it regardless of whatever is done to me by authority. I have made the Prime Minister aware of the circumstances of what I allege and that I cannot co-operate with a bankruptcy that has been engineered by means of the fraud etc.
While I would agree that the Judiciary should have recognised the use of fraud etc that has been used against me, I am equally aware that as fellow members of the Judiciary, is it likely that they would wish it to be known that such fellow member was capable of carrying out the acts of which I allege. In any event they have shown that they are incapable of condemning one of their fellow members of the Judiciary. I would also have to agree, that to show the corrupt actions of one of their number may not be in the public Interest, but my concern is that it is of primary importance to me that it is not in my interest to give way to the use of such fraud etc which would result in substantial loss. My losses because of it are very substantial already.
There is the additional matter of Court Proceedings at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court late last year when I was found guilty of alleged harassment of my civil law opponent Miss Shirley Carr. This matter is subject of appeal but what is of relevance is whether corruption at that court some thirteen years ago could have had any bearing on the outcome of that case last year.
Thirteen years ago I was battered and then struck by a car that was driven at me. The matter went before Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court. There were two magistrates present at that hearing. One of the magistrates, William Moseley, was, and remains, well acquainted with my assailant of that time and was also an acquaintance of mine. Later he alleged he had stood down but had remained sitting on the bench. The remaining magistrate was required to hold qualifications to act alone in that hearing. A policemen later informed me that the magistrate held no such qualification. After a considerable number of attempts to learn from the Clerk to the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates, Mr Bavidge, as to whether the remaining single magistrate held such required qualification, he wrote that as the magistrate concerned was on holiday he had not been able to obtain that information for me. The policeman informed me that Mr Bavidge would have been well aware that the magistrate concerned did not have the necessary qualification and would not have needed to contact him if indeed he had been on holiday at that time.
On December 8 1998 I wrote to Mr Bavidge regarding those illegal court proceedings thirteen year ago. He has yet to reply to me on the questions I put to him. Since I first became aware that those proceedings were illegal, I have broadcast to many, including the magistrate William Mosely, that I was aware that the proceedings in court relevant to my having been battered and then struck by a car that was driven at me were unlawful. Mr Moseley frequented Hetton Masonic Hall and my assailant Robert Willis Gardner Pringle supplied that Hall with fruit and vegetables for use in its functions.
It is extremely likely that Mr Bavidge would in the course of the years have been made aware of my allegations regarding his involvement in the cover up of the illegal proceedings. I believe in these circumstances, my trial for alleged harassment should not have been heard at Houghton-le-Spring. It is also of relevance that I believe the magistrate William Moseley still sits at Houghton-le Spring Magistrates Court. As Mr Bavidge has failed to reply to my questions regarding this I cannot definitely confirm this to be fact though.
I am equally concerned when it is now shown that their had been no prior intent to show extremely relevant evidence that the complainant to the police of my alleged harassment, my civil law opponent Miss Shirley Carr, had committed perjury and that the former Recorder J.H.Fryer-Spedding had not only allowed that ,but had added to it by the use of his lies regarding some of that evidence. There is not I might add any question of doubt that what he did was indeed deliberate. The evidence of which I refer, I had supplied to my solicitor, Mr Jackson, who agrees he is also a Freemason, was at the time of the trial held by another solicitor at Newcastle.
There are other matters of concern to me, but I think it is correct to say that what I report here are the most pressing matters at this time which need to be addressed by you.
Return to opening page
Go to page index
Any E-mail please to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk