DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE BAIRD.
It is illegal for a Deputy District Judge to hear any appeal let alone one from the ruling of a District Judge (Higher Court). At the time D D Baird heard my appeal below, it is certain that he was aware that what he was doing was illegal. When I approached the Durham County Court on the matter they too tried to bluff their way out of the situation and eventually said that it had been a mistake after I forced the issue. There could not have been any mistake at all. DD Baird and the Clerk to the Court must have been aware that the appeal hearing below was illegal. Instead of Baird being prosecuted or dismissed from the Court Circuit he was allowed to hear the first action between Carr and myself in case NE401650. That took place at the Newcastle County Court a little later. My wife was not allowed into his chambers to assist me. A Mr Kevin Kerrigan and Professor Kenny of the University of Northumbria Law School were both allowed into Baird's chambers. Baird asked Kenny for his opinion on the case (NE401650) even though Kerrigan was clearly acting as Carr's advocate. That too was a gross violation of court rules. Had I recognised Baird I would not have allowed him to sit on the case. Why was Baird not sacked for unlawfully hearing my appeal from the higher court? Why was he allowed to preside in the first action between Carr and I? Carr had been unable to provide any proof that she owned the land subject of case NE401650. I provided Baird with proof that I and my father (now deceased) had title to the land. Baird ignored it and allowed Carr to go into possession of our land. In the circumstances Baird could not have been impartial to the proceedings before him as justice requires. Its clear that Baird had an axe to grind. That most certainly was for my having drawn attention to the Durham County Court for his having carried out the illegal appeal hearing from the judgement of the Higher Court.
Recorder John H Fryer-Spedding did not tell the truth as it is shown on this site which had allowed Carr to remain in possession of the land. There is other indisputable evidence showing that fact. Spedding overturned the rule of law to allow Carr to stay in possession of our land subject of case NE401650. Spedding even agreed that it was his intention to deprive me of my rights. That is confirmed by his approved transcript of judgement. No judge can lawfully deprive anyone of their rights. The Lord Chancellors Department is aware of these facts and will eventually have to take action to remedy the situation whether they like it or not. Protecting bent judges would seem to be a part the Lord Chancellors Departments work regardless of the costs to their victims. This situation will be brought to an end.
Go to crime pages index.
Go to pages index.
Go to home page.