|
|
Why did District Judge Bailey seemingly ignore the facts and evidence that I had supplied to him as detailed below at the hearing for possession of my home by Shirley Carr who is shown to have used a huge amount of fraud to allow her to arrive at my present situation?
D.J Bailey's Possession Order of the 16th December 2002.
-----------------------
This is The Statement Of Truth of Maurice Kellett, 16A The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne-Wear DH50HT. All statements that I the above named Maurice Kellett make below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Durham District Land Registry. It then came to light that Miss Shirley Carr, of 16 The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne-Wear DH50HT, hereafter called the applicant, who has applied for possession of my home and land under case number DH202326, had used further very serious fraud in cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 from which this application has been derived.
2a. Despite at all material times the applicant having been aware of recorder John H Fryer-Spedding's judgement and confirmation of it by his approved transcript of judgement, the applicant still failed to declare that she had registered the land subject of case NE401650 early on in proceedings under case NE401650 and which registration at HM Land Registry had taken place on the 12th August 1994. At no time has the applicant fulfilled the requirements of the Prescription Act to allow her to register in her name land subject of case NE401650. That was also very true indeed at the time the applicant registered the land on the 12th of July 1994 clearly using unlawful means to do that. The bankruptcy made against me on the grounds of Fraud carried out against me by the applicant and other is the reason for the applicant now making an application for the possession of my home and land under application number DH202326.
2b. I am aware that the Statutory Declarations sworn by my self and my father, since deceased, had not been included in the bundles ready for trial of the cases which the applicant had unlawfully prepared and had been assisted in that by another person by the name of Alison Stott, a solicitor then practicing from Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham. The two Statutory Declarations that I refer to were used in my defence at the initial hearing before Deputy District Judge Baird. Copies of them had been provided to Mr Kevin Kerrigan of the University of Northumbria Law Clinic just prior to the hearing held before Deputy District Judge Baird. The copies of those statutory declarations had not been stamped by the Newcastle County Court as exhibits under case number NE401650. I believe that the applicant, Miss Shirley Carr, may have used one or both of them in her application to register land subject of case NE401650 on the 12th Of July 1994. In any event, it is shown that the applicant could not have registered the land subject of case NE401650 so early on in court proceedings by lawful means. Even up to this present time, the applicant has not fulfilled the requirements of the Prescription Act to allow her to derive any possessory title to the land subject of case NE401650 which has been instrumental in my bankruptcy and subsequent application for the possession of my home and land under case DH202326. I also believe that the reason the applicant in this matter had not made known the facts involving her use of fraud used in case NE401650 was that to have done so would have brought to light the use of her fraud.
2c. The applicant has agreed to me that she deliberately left out from the judges bundles, which was at a time she had unlawfully prepared them, documents that she said she did not consider to have been important. Part of the documentation I refer to, was the refusal by the Durham County Court presided over by District Judge Scott-Phillips on the 1st of June 1994 for the consolidation of cases DH400950 and DH400898 into her sole case under case number NE401650. That matter is more fully described in the attached Exhibit 2.
2d. I have no recollection whatsoever of the Statutory Declarations that had been sworn by me and my father, now deceased, that were used as evidence of our lawful title to land subject of case NE401650 having been included in the judges bundles that had in the circumstances shown herein to have been carried out unlawfully by the applicant and solicitor Alison Stott, then practicing from Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham..
2e. At all material times, the applicant and other persons associated with her in that matter, are shown by evidence not included here but is under publication elsewhere, were aware before and after the event that the trial under case NE401650 had been unlawful and that at the material times, the applicant and others associated with her in that matter failed to make known the facts to the courts or authorities which surrounded the illegal trial of case NE401650 and the part that they played in that matter more specifically in this case by the applicant, Miss Shirley Carr.
2f. The applicant and those associated with her and having played a part in fraud used against me, being in full awareness that on the 1st of June 1994 an order had been made at the Durham County Court refusing consolidation of the cases DH400950 and D4400898 into the applicants case under NE401650 had never been subject of appeal by the applicant and stood at the time the cases DH400950, DH400898 were in the circumstances unlawfully tried under the applicants case number of NE401650. The applicant, and the above named solicitor Alison Stott, are shown by evidence not included here, to have played a part in it. They failed to make known the material facts of the illegality of the trial NE401650 then played a part in applying for my bankruptcy that took place in March of 1999 when costs awarded against me by then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding under the action that had been unlawfully tried under case number NE401650 were not met. At the material times the applicant and the above named solicitor Alison Stott were in the full knowledge that my bankruptcy made at the Durham County Court in March of 1999 had been made following the use of their own fraud. It is under the bankruptcy Order made in March of 1999 against me, that the applicant has been given title to my home and land subject of this application under claim number DH202326.
2g. Recorder John H Fryer-Spedding ruled that my father, William Kellett, was the person most who might have become entitled to a possessory title to the land subject of case NE401650. My father, now my late father, had sworn an affidavit that both he and I, the above named Maurice Kellett, had jointly used the land subject of case NE401650 for a period of around twenty seven years with disturbance or any adverse claim being made against us during that time. The relevance that I attach to my latter statement is that following having seen the approved transcript of judgement of recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, my father went ahead with an application to the Durham County Court to be allowed to go back into possession of the and subject of case NE401650. His application relative to the land that had been subject of case NE401650 was heard by District Judge Cuthbertson sitting at the Durham County Court. The latter named judge ruled that my fathers application to be allowed to go back into possession of the land subject of case NE401650, was an abuse of court time and refused his application. In the circumstances that I describe here, the court presided over by District Judge Cuthbertson was ultra vires by virtue that it had ruled against the judgement of the higher court that had been presided over by then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding.
2h. I represented my father at his appeal to be allowed to go back into possession of the land that had been subject to a ruling under case NE401650. It was heard by Circuit Judge H Paling. Circuit Judge H Paling refused to allow me to speak at my father's appeal and then dismissed it. That was a gross breach of my fathers rights under the law and under the European Human Rights Convention.
2i. While I do not in the circumstances have sufficient time to detail the full amount of the crime and misconduct that was used against me, and in the circumstances that I describe, and also of my father, now deceased, I attach relevance to the following facts.
2j. My rights and those of my father, now deceased, had been shown to have been abused, as I have described above by the use of fraud carried out against me by the applicant and other persons. Under Article 6(1) of the European Human Rights Convention it had been an additional part of our rights as full European Citizens to have access to an Independent and Impartial Tribunal or Authority established by law for the resolution of our rights. I am aware of no such existence of such Independent Tribunal or Authority within the United Kingdom where the resolution of our rights in the circumstances I briefly detail above, could be given due consideration. I have approached the Manager of the Durham County Court, The Prime Minister's Office and my Member of Parliament, Mr Fraser Kemp asking where I could have access to such Independent and Impartial Tribunals or authorities. These authorities have all failed to answer the questions regarding it. In these latter circumstances, and in addition to the matters that have previously raised, extra damage has been caused to me, and had also in the case of my father, because of the present governments failure to provide access to such Independent and Impartial Tribunals or Authorities established by law for the resolution of our rights. The matter is made worse by the Durham County Court failing to address my damages claim made against it on the 26th of January this year for crime/misconduct carried out against me there in the matter of case numbers DH400950, DH400950 and NE4-01650. The crime and misconduct which is detailed in my claim for damages against the Durham County Court, are material to the present application under case number DH202326. I hold in the circumstances that I describe above, I, the above named Maurice Kellett, as a European Citizen having been deprived of my rights under Article 6(1) of the European Human Rights Convention, I am entitled in any event to compensation from the government for its failure to carry out its duties under the European Human Rights Convention which have contributed to my present situation. I also hold that those persons involved in the crime/misconduct that I describe as having been used against me, should be required to compensate the government for any such loss caused to it and the British citizens where such independent and impartial Tribunals and authorities can reasonably be shown would have played a part in such fair resolution of their rights as required under the European Human Rights Convention. The latter would be in the cause of true justice. I also hold that it would in addition be right and proper in the what would generally be accepted to the common man as being for and in the general public interest that those who are part of the State, having acted outside of the powers of the State, should forfeit any such costs as might be occasioned to the State arising from such loss to it.
2k. In the circumstances that I have described above, and in the application made against me under case number DH202326, if the court believes itself to be independent and impartial in this matter as required under the European Human Rights Convention and a fit authority to hear the application number DH202326, and the fraud that I describe that has been used to bring about my present situation, then I hold that the court must also take into consideration the part played in my present situation, by those being part of the State named by me in my damages claim against the Durham County Court following those who have already played a part under circumstances that have already been shown to be ultra vires.
2l. The applicant has stated in her Particulars Of Claim in this matter under paragraph 2. that a consolidated action was pursued against me, the above named Maurice Kellett, under case numbers NE401650, DH400950, DH5 00628 and that on the 24th of October 1996 judgement was given on the Claimants behalf. The claimant and the applicant in this case remains in full awareness that there was never at any time an Order consolidating any of the actions she names. The applicant remains in the full knowledge that she had used fraud to enable judgement against me in cases DH400950 and DH400898 and were unlawfully tried in the circumstances under the alleged consolidated action under the applicants case against me under NE401650. Without the authority or knowledge of the Durham County Court the applicant had prepared the judges bundles ready for trial. She then left out her application and subsequent refusal for consolidation of the cases made by Order of the Durham County Court on the 1st of June 1994. The applicant is shown to be continuing with her use of further fraud given the circumstances that I describe herein.
2m. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL under LAZARUS ESTATES LIMITED V BEASLEY
Plaint Number L 0 847
Before Denning, Morris and Parker, L.JJ.
0n12, 13 and 24 January 1956
JUDGEMENT
No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained 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. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgements, contracts and all transactions whatsoever.
I hold and evidence shows that the applicant in this matter has used fraud to allow her to arrive at her present position of becoming as she states, the sole owner of my home and land subject of her application for possession of it under case number DH202326, therefore under the above named ruling before Lord Denning, all judgements, contracts, and all transactions whatsoever claimed by the applicant cannot stand. This notwithstanding the other use of fraud carried out against me in this matter and the matters that have been by derived from the use of fraud carried out against me by the above named applicant, solicitor Alison Stott and others.
2n. Whilst in the present circumstances that I have described and in the additional circumstances of my having insufficient time to state all the facts that are very material to this matter I include a copy of my damages claim under EXHIBIT 3. made against solicitor Alison Stott, previously practicing from Aykley Vale Chambers, Durham. It also details her part in the fraud used against me that has enabled the applicant to arrive at her present situation of becoming, as she has alleged, the sole owner of my home and land subject of this application for possession of them.
2o. I have indicated amongst a number of other matters in my letter to the Manager of the Durham County Court dated the 3rd of December 2002 which was dated in error as the 3rd of February 2002, that the judges involved throughout cases DH400950, DH400898 an NE401650 all failed/refused/or ignored my requests to know whether they were Freemasons or not. I had made them all aware that I had contributed to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. It is upon the basis of the costs awarded against me by then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding that a bankruptcy order was obtained against me to the benefit of the above named applicant, who facts and evidence shows had used very serious fraud in the above actions to allow her to become sole owner of my home and land. Following the latter circumstances leading up to my application for leave to appeal the judgement of recorder John Fryer_Spedding which was refused, I wrote to Lords Bingham and Woolf on the matter following that Lord justices Auld and Pill, having heard my application for leave to appeal the judgement of recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, and then refused it but would not declare to me any possible membership of Freemasonry. Lord Woolf and Bingham wrote to me that judges were not required to make such declaration. When I supplied forms to the Durham County Court to allow me to know whether the judges in the matter of cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 including right up to my appeal against bankruptcy were or not Freemasons, The Court Service wrote that the judges in those matters were not required to make that declaration which I required and mentioned above, to ascertain whether in fact the courts under which they presided had indeed been independent and impartial as required under the European Human Rights Convention.
2p. My rights are held to be determined under Article 6(1) under (Schuler-Zgraggen v Switzerland (1993) 16 EHRR 405 at para 46) in terms of Article 6(1) of the Convention. For the purposes of Article 6(1) the existence of impartiality is to be determined under two tests, one subjective, one objective (Piersack v Belgium (1982) 5 EHRR 169 at para 30). In Remli v France (1996) EHRR 253, 1996-II, p 559 a majority court held that there was an obligation on every court to check whether it is an "impartial tribunal" in accordance with Article 6(1) where the point is raised. The European Court considers that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention imposes an obligation on every national court to check whether, as constituted, it is " an impartial tribunal" within the meaning of that provision (art. 6-1) where, as in my case, this has been disputed on the ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit. Under a ruling made at the European Court, the courts must inspire in those subject of their jurisdiction. Failure to do that has been ruled by the European Court to be a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art 6-1). The courts in the matter of cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401560 right up to the time of my bankruptcy failed to meet the impartiality-subjective test-ground, and the independence ground. The word "independent" where it occurs in Article 6(1) has been held by the European Court to mean independence of the executive and also the parties ( Ringeisen v Austria (No 1) (1971) 1 EHRR 455). The courts under the above actions DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 which have led to the applicants application under case DH202326 failed amongst other things under the ruling made under Remli v France supra. This is another matter which I hold that if the court is to decide that it is competent to rule on the application under case number DH202326, given the circumstances that I have described, it must for and in the general public interest, at the very least, also take into consideration the failure of those courts to fit the tests required under Article 6(1) of the European Human Rights Convention under Remli v France supra.
2q. Again due to the lack of time given the circumstances, I simply attach EXHIBIT 4. which is my damages claim made against the Durham Country Court on the 26th of February 2002. It details the reasons for my claim.
2r. Again under the urgency of this matter and the time that I would need to expand on it, I include notes made and signed by me, the above named Maurice Kellett my submission under EXHIBIT 5.
2s. Again by reason of the lack of time that is available to me in the circumstances that only short notice of the application made by the above named Shirley Carr in the case for her possession of my home and land I attach a copy of my Affidavit sworn on the 6th of December 2002 at the Sunderland County Court attached hereto under EXHIBIT 6.
2t. The solicitor for the Durham District Land Registry was made aware during my lengthy interview with him on the 6th of December 2002 that the use of fraud had been used by the above named applicant, Shirley Carr to enable her to apply for registration of my home and land subject of this case number DH202326. Despite that fact, the solicitor failed to take any action to halt the registration of my home and land that had been acquired by the use of fraud by the applicant and others who had assisted her in that. He made me aware at the time of my meeting with him that registration of my home and land to the applicant was underway.
2u. Matters and evidence concerning the use of fraud carried out against me in case numbers DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 were given to Northumbria Police a considerable time ago. On the 3rd of December 2002, the applicant removed a document from property in my possession that has been publicising facts about her part in fraud used against me under cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650. I reported that matter to Northumbria Police. Two police officers of that Police Force took away copies of that documentation stolen from me by the applicant detailing part of the applicants fraud in the above cases. Those police officers accepted the statements made in the copies of those stolen documents as my further formal complaint of fraud that had been used against me by the applicant in the above cases that have led to my present situation where the applicant applies for the possession of my home and land under application No. DH202326.
On the 6th of December 2002, following further evidence having come to light of serious fraud used against me by the above named applicant, Miss Shirley Carr, during my interview on that day with the solicitor for the Durham District Land Registry, I went to the Houghton -le-Spring Police Station to report the evidence of that further very serious use of fraud that she had used against me that has led to my present situation. An officer at that Police Station made a copy of the letter written by the solicitor for the Land Registry that had been signed by me in his presence and is attached under EXHIBIT 2. I have also spoken since that time with other police officers, including one senior police officer of Northumbria Police on the matter of the new evidence of further serious fraud that has been used against me by the applicant that came to light on the 6th of December 2002.
All statements that I have made above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signed by me the above named Maurice Kellett
On the 15th of December 2002.
Note: Ultra Vires means illegal.