Friday 17th January 2003
THE GREAT DECEIVERS
I had a meeting at 1.33pm with Mr Patrick Timothy the Chief Registrar of the Durham District Land Registry. I had previously been told by his solicitor Mr Peed that I could have a half an hour with Mr Timothy. I provided him evidence of my allegations against Shirley Carr. Amongst that evidence was that Carr had agreed in her affidavit of the 2nd of March 1994 that I had fenced off the land subject of Newcastle County Court case number NE401650 on the 15th of February 1994. Carr falsely claimed then that the land was part of her garden. Video film evidence that was shown to then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding taken at the time the fencing took place was that the alleyway land subject of the case was neither part of her garden nor being used as part of it. Spedding's remarks about what he saw on that film were utterly contrary to what the video evidence showed. Under Prescription and the Limitations Act Once the land had been fenced off then even if Carr had been using the land, which she was not, then the twelve year prescription period under the Limitations Act only then started to run afresh. The twelve year prescription period only started to run afresh when Carr was allowed to take possession of the land a few weeks later.
The possession of our land was allowed by the order of Deputy District Judge Baird. Around a year before that hearing Baird had heard my appeal against the order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips in the matter of damage that had occurred to our property following a car crash with it. It is illegal for a Deputy District Judge to hear any appeal let alone one from the higher court. At first there was, as evidence shows, an attempt to hide that matter. Eventually after pressure from me Durham County Court agreed in early 1993 that the appeal had been listed for hearing before Deputy District Judge Baird in error. It could not have been in error. Deputy District Judges all will surely be aware that they are not allowed to hear any appeal. It was Baird who then ruled about a year later that Carr could go into possession of our land subject of case NE401650. Carr could not provide any evidence of her claim that she had an entitlement to the land. Two statutory declarations had been provided to Baird as evidence that both I and my father (now deceased) had used the land without disturbance for around twenty seven years. Spedding falsely alleged that the thirty year period was the one that was required for a title to the land by possession whereas only the twelve year period was necessary. Its clear to me that Baird had been given a second chance instead of action been taken for his illegal previous hearing that caused me damage. He was not in any event considered to have been impartial and independent as justice requires.
I received a letter written by Mr F V Clough, Assistant Land Registrar dated the 18th of August 1998 stating that Carr had been registered with a possessory title to the land that had been subject of case NE401650. Bearing in mind that the land was fenced off from Carr's garden on February 15 1994, as she agreed in her affidavit of the 2nd of March 1994 then the period from when the registration to Carr of a possessory title to the land sometime it appears just before the 18th of August, means that Carr was able to register that title to her under a possessory title for a period of use, that had been ordered against me and my father by District Judge Baird who had previously carried out a serious crime against me, and was well short of the 12 year undisturbed possession of it required by law. Patrick Timothy had been provided with evidence on the 14th of September that recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, who as evidence shows. That he had carried out acts that perverted the course of justice, ruled in the matter of the land, and his ruling is confirmed in his approved transcript of judgement, " As far as Miss Carr is concerned, she has no claim that she is entitled to a possessory title, although she does claim that Mr Kellett is not so entitled".
Spedding's transcript of judgement goes on, " It is possible that Mr Kellett Snr., the more likely probability than the other members of the family, Mr Kellett Snr alone might have become entitled to a possessory title based upon a twelve year period , but if it was a 30 year period, which was material then he would not obtain such title". Spedding's approved transcript of judgement goes on, " I find therefore that it would not be proper for me to deal with any questions as to whether or not any party has obtained the possessory title in these proceedings".
Spedding's transcript of judgement goes on, " It is possible that Mr Kellett Snr., the more likely probability than the other members of the family, Mr Kellett Snr alone might have become entitled to a possessory title based upon a twelve year period , but if it was a 30 year period, which was material then he would not obtain such title".
Spedding's approved transcript of judgement goes on, " I find therefore that it would not be proper for me to deal with any questions as to whether or not any party has obtained the possessory title in these proceedings".
Spedding had been provided with statutory declarations and affidavits proving that both I and my father had used the land without disturbance for around twenty seven years. By virtue of that Spedding would have known that we had both lawful title to the land by a period of 12 years possession of it. If it turned out to be Crown land then the Land Registry register would have needed to be corrected if we had been registered to it. But here we have a woman, perfectly willing to swear perjury in those proceedings and as evidence shows and was assisted by Spedding in that, being able to register the land with possessory title for a period of well short of that required by law? In fact Carr's registration of the land was from the 12th of July 1994.
The fact that Carr had unlawfully prepared the judges bundle and had left out documents from it which she later agreed that she did not consider as being important, one of which was the refusal of her application of the three cases between us for consolidation, is conveniently also being ignored by the apparent Mafia who have been involved in the injustice. As to the extent of the documents that Carr left out of the judges bundle is still not known. There were other affidavits provided to the court confirming my and my fathers joint usage of the land but did Carr put them in the bundle? Solicitor Alison Stott had been involved as well in that fraud. Her part in it is proved and published on my website.
I found Land Registrar Patrick Timothy to be very defensive today. He refused to explain to me how Carr had been able to register a possessory title to the land when even had Spedding had agreed she had no claim to it? He also refused to tell me how Carr had been able to register the land when she had not fulfilled the requirements of Law. His answer to me that he did not need to answer those questions. Timothy kept clock watching and then told me that as my half hour with him was up he was going. The meeting served no purpose and to me was a waste of my time. My confidence in Timothy was previously and remains as absolutely nil. Even the Land Registry solicitor, Mr Peed, agreed to me on Tuesday the 14th of January 2003 that fraud must have been used to allow the situation of Carr having been allowed to register the land.. Mr Peed kept saying to me that the situation was "strange".
I went from the Land Registry to Durham Constabulary Headquarters. There I saw again Detective Inspector Gibson but not by choice. He showed no interest in the additional evidence that I wanted him to look at. When I saw him at Durham of the 12th of December, he showed clear reluctance and did not even look at the evidence I took for his examination. He simply grabbed a handful of it and took it away as he said to be copied. When he returned and I told him that he had left part of the evidence, he replied that he had enough and the other did not matter, even when he had not even looked at it! DI Gibson of Durham Constabulary like DI Atkinson of Northumbria police who I also saw and delivered evidence to him on the 27th of December 2003, refused to look at the evidence and would not even accept it from me for examination. It was eventually left with the officer on desk when I refused to take it back home with me. Though I asked Both DI Gibson and DI Atkinson if they would declare any membership of Freemasonry to me as I was sure that my having taken part in the Nolan Inquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary had a bearing on what was being done to me. Both refused to declare of deny that they were masons. DI Gibson had today what appears to be his usual reluctance to investigate fully my case.
The stench of corruption gets stronger given also that the Court Service in Southside, London, told me the day before yesterday that they had no record of my claim for damages made against the Durham County Court for evidenced crime that they used on me. The Durham county Court manager, Mr K Hunt, wrote to me in August last year that he had in fact provided my claim to them? Yesterday he said again that he had forwarded my claim on. He left the employment of the Durham County Court tonight. Freemasonry is still clearly at work here and they are showing just how evil a mob they really are.
Matters are far from over. I paid a visit to a local Magistrates Court after I saw DI Gibson. It looks like there may only be one option left open for me given that so much blatant use of crime has been used against me in these matters. Those who are empowered to deal with are shown by evidence to have been part of it themselves. But the corruption band, probably of the Masonic Stale Wind Lodge, still plays on. How do I know its Masonic and how do I know that their wind is stale? Masons are known for such things and smelling them is believing it. A new opposing band may be about to enter the arena.
Go to pages index
Go to home page.