The Prime Minister, 16A The Lyons,

Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, Hetton-le-Hole,

10 Downing Street, Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT.

London.

OPEN LETTER.

To be published for and in the general public interest.

4^th June 2001.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister

To give this letter greater credibility, I, the writer of it, Maurice Kellett, of 16A The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole , Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT declare that if I have knowingly or wilfully placed anything within it which I know to be untrue then I am liable to prosecution. The following statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

To give further credibility to this letter I also name some of those responsible for gross misconduct while holding public office. I also name others who have played a very significant part in the corruption of which I detail and remain subject of.

You will find enclosed with this letter two Statements of Truth. I signed one dated 29^th September 1999 (81 pages in length) and the other (7 pages in length) is also signed by me and dated 21^st May 2001. I am sure that if you take the time to read these documents you will realise that the allegations, which I make within them, are of an extremely serious nature and of national importance. While our judiciary are allowed to get away with the serious crimes I detail along with evidence in my Statements of Truth then there is no question other than tyranny is being deliberately practised by some elements within our judiciary and police. That tyranny and corrupt actions is so blatant that it gives rise to further concern as to the seemingly sheer confidence of those practising it that they will be allowed to get away with it.

It is some years when I first informed you of what was being done to my family and me by corruptive forces active within our police and judiciary. The situation can now be shown by substantive evidence to have got a lot worse. Since I wrote to you It has cost me my thirty year marriage and family following threats that our home would be burnt down unless I stopped publicising my concerns on both local and national news media about such corruptive forces which I attribute to organised criminal activities by members of Freemasonry. The stress placed upon us all was massive and evidence shows that the injustice we suffered was calculated and deliberate acts. In 1999 these corruptive forces were without doubt also responsible for the death of my father. Probably one of my most serious mistakes was in supplying Lord Nolan with evidence and material for use in the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary.

I approached my Member of Parliament Mr. Fraser Kemp in 1997 with very substantial evidence of corruption within our judiciary. He passed my dossier of evidence to a young man just out of school by the name of Vary who was then employed by him. Mr. Vardy later agreed to me that he was totally out of his depth in being able to deal with the matters contained within my dossier. Mr. Kemp said that I should approach my then Euro MP Mr. Alan Donnelly about the contents of my dossier. Having done that, Mr. Donnelly replied that what I had reported to him and that which was contained within that dossier was nothing to do with him. It was more than clear that Mr. Kemp too felt unable for whatever reason to deal with the matters I had placed in his hands. In the many years since 1986 when the judicial system provided me with evidence that there were corruptive forces acting within it, passing the buck from one to another has been an all too common practice. Endless streams of letters from me to you, the courts, the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and others have brought about a totally negative response. This would seem to imply that tyranny is an acceptable practice and will be protected by the establishment. It is not my intention to give way to it under any circumstances regardless of the possible consequences arising. I wish to point out a fact which will be well known to you that as Prime Minister, you have a responsibility above all others to see that corruption within our police and judiciary is investigated when it is detailed to you and where there is sufficient evidence to show that such investigation would be justified in the general public interest. The token evidence of corruptive forces I provide here to you contained within my Statements of Truth is backed up by other substantial proof of my allegations made within this communication to you. I see little point at this time, pending your acceptance that you have a responsibility in the matters I report to you, in spending further huge amounts of time and money in duplicating yet again such evidence much of which has on previous occasions been supplied by me to Lord Irvine, Lord Bingham, Lord Woolf, the Home Secretary and yourself.

A summary of some of my various allegations backed by substantial evidence is as follows:

1. In 1986 illegal proceedings took place at Houghton-le-Spring, Tyne-Wear, Magistrates Court after I had been battered and struck by a vehicle that was deliberately driven at me. I had at that time-unearthed corruption within the then British Coal Estates Department. The magistrate who ruled in that case was not qualified to act alone. Those court proceedings were therefore illegal. Those involved in the cover up of those illegal proceedings were the courts Clerk to the justices, Mr. Bavidge, and a Mr. J. J. Death of the Lord Chancellors Department.

2. My wife and daughters were subject of a threat to stab them. The man who made that threat repeated it to a Northumbria police officer. No action was taken on it by the officer to whom the threat was repeated or by Northumbria Police when it was further reported to its Inspector Peacock.

3. My wife and I were assaulted. We both suffered bruising. The man who carried it out admitted his assault on us to Northumbria Police. They took no action.

4. Our property suffered damage at the hands of the same man as above whom admitted carrying out that damage to Northumbria Police. Northumbria Police took no action on the matter.

5. A solicitor, Mr. Paul Graney, previously of Houghton-le-Spring, Tyne-Wear, since struck from the register of solicitors, swore false information in his statutory declaration used to place a caution at HM Land Registry relative to land of which my late father and myself had lawful title. The evidence to prove that false information sworn within his statutory declaration was taken to detective sergeant McGann and detective inspector Storey then in 1995 based at Houghton-le-Spring Police Station. They falsely claimed that Mr. Graney swearing such false information was not a police matter. Detective sergeant McGann has since retired following my allegations against him to Northumbria Police. Mr. Graney was to later agree in an affidavit that the information contained within his statutory declaration was untrue. Northumbria Police have been in receipt of these facts and the evidence to support them for several years. They have failed to take any action on it.

6. In 1992 Deputy District Judge Baird heard my appeal from an order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips sitting at the Durham County Court. It is of course unlawful for a deputy District Judge to hear an appeal from an order made by a District judge. Deputy District Judge Baird and the then Chief Clerk to the Durham County Court would of course have been fully aware of that fact. Those involved in the cover up of those matters included the then courts Chief Clerk. Deputy District Judge Baird was involved in further gross misconduct in 1994 at the Newcastle County Court. I was a victim of that gross misconduct on both occasions. The Lord Chancellor ignored those matters when I reported them to him.

7. District Judge Scott-Phillips sitting at the Durham County Court made an order in 1995 in the matter of its case reference numbers DH400950, DH400898 and Newcastle County Court case number NE401650, that I be allowed to attend the offices of solicitor Nancy Bone then of Durham City, to take copies from my files which she held by lien. When Nancy Bone breached that order I reported it to the then Chief Clerk of the Durham County Court Mr. I. Cuthbertson. He informed me that District Judge Scott-Phillips had told him that he had not made that order. He claimed that District Judge Scott-Phillips had told him that my visit to the offices of Nancy Bone had only been done with her consent. Nancy Bone was later struck from the register of solicitors. My files, which she held, were then returned to me. In those files were documents where she agreed that my attendance at her office to take copies from my files had been by order of the court. The files had been required for use in the above-mentioned civil actions eventually unlawfully heard in October of 1996 at the Newcastle County Court. The three civil actions referenced above were heard unlawfully before then Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding. The hearing before then Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding was illegal by reasons of some of my following statements which are backed up by considerable evidence. John H. Fryer-Spedding was then to take deliberate action, which is again backed up by considerable evidence showing this, to carry out acts with the deliberate sole purpose of further perverting the course of justice.

8. District Judge Cuthbertson sitting at the Durham County Court in 1995 adjourned a hearing relative to the three above referenced civil actions, which took place before him. Among those at that hearing were myself, solicitor Alison Stott of Durham City, and my civil opponent, Miss Shirley Carr, employed as a National Insurance Inspector, at Longbenton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I was never informed of when that hearing was to reconvene. Later on that day of the adjourned hearing, solicitor Alison Stott and Miss Carr returned to the Durham County Court. During my absence, District Judge Scott-Phillips then granted a very substantive injunction in the favour of Miss Carr. That injunction was to lead to my imprisonment at Durham County Court for alleged contempt of court. While in prison I suffered what Dryburn Hospital, Durham City, said had been a stroke. In protest at that gross injustice I had refused all food and water while I was imprisoned at Durham.

Despite his various acts to pervert the course of justice then Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding ruled that my father was the one most likely to own land subject of case number NE401650. In fact considerable evidence was provided to Spedding showing that both my late father and I were the lawful owners of it. When my father applied to the Durham County Court to go back into possession of that land following John Fryer--Spedding's ruling, District Judge Cuthbertson ruled that his application was an abuse of court time. Despite not complying with the requirements of the Limitations Act to obtain title to land by twelve years undisturbed possession of it, Miss Shirley Carr has been allowed to register the land in her sole name. This amount's to a pure act of theft allowed by judges named herein who have shown total disregard for law under which they too are bound. The land had also formed the only right of way to the rear of my property for at least one hundred and fifty years. There are maps to assist in showing that. The garden of Miss Carr's property has also been part of that right of way as agreed at the time my wife and I had purchased our property. Among his many lies, Spedding ruled that as the right of way to the rear of our property had not been reserved in the conveyance of the adjoining property at the time of its sale, then our right of way across the garden of that property came to an end. Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which applies to the sale of all land and property, would have been well known to Spedding. That Act states that all rights appertaining and existing at the time of the conveyance of property are deemed to be conveyed with that property. Why did Spedding who would have known about that Section of the Act decide to lie and disregard it? It was of course only part of his many acts, which he carried out to pervert of the course of justice in the matters of cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650.

9. In 1995, solicitor Alison Stott, of Durham City, had accepted the work from

District Judge Scott-Phillips sitting at the Durham County Court of preparing the judges bundles ready for trial relative to the three above detailed civil actions between Miss Carr and myself. She had then secretly passed on that work for Miss Carr to carry out. Miss Carr prepared the judges bundles leaving out documents from them. One such document was very important. That document was an order made on 1^st June 1994 at the Durham County Court by District Judge Scott-Phillips refusing her application for consolidation of the three civil actions underway between us

.

10. On January 17 1996 solicitor Alison Stott made a declaration to the Newcastle County Court, presided over by then Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding. She declared that up until that same date of January 17 1996 she had not been acting for my civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr but had only been assisting her. During the time she had been Miss Carr's assistant, solicitor Alison Stott had both accepted the work of drafting the wordings of undertakings agreed in general principle between myself and Miss Carr and the preparation of the judges bundles ready for trial. Solicitor Stott would have been fully aware that as an assistant to Miss Carr she was not entitled and that it was unlawful to accept any work from the Durham County Court let alone secretly pass on that work for Miss Carr to carry out.

The Durham County Court files do not contain the important information as to which District Judge had given the work of preparing the judges bundles ready for trial. I have again recently examined the court files to be certain that it was not recorded on the court files as to who was authorised to prepare the judges bundles in 1995. One among a number of question that I placed in my recent letter to the Chief Clerk of the Durham County Court was under normal circumstances would District Judge Scott-Phillips hand the work of the preparation of the judges bundles in readiness for trial to a litigant when that litigant was allegedly represented by a solicitor. The courts present manager handed my letter to District Judge Scott-Phillips who has declined to answer any of the questions contained within it. Only he was able to fully answer my questions placed within it. District Judge Scott-Phillips instructed the court manager to hand over my letter to which I refer to the Court Service. He would have of course been aware that the Court Service could not answer the question I had raised within that letter. Weeks and a string of letter to and from the London Court Service followed. When it became very clear that the Court Service were effectively attempting to frustrate my attempts to get at more of the truth of judicial corruption, I wrote asking them to detail the purpose of their Service. They failed thereafter to reply to any further letters from me. The reason District Judge Scott-Phillips had probably instructed that my letter, which required his answer to my questions be handed to the Court Service, then became very clear

.

11. In October of 1996 then Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding tried the three civil actions have referred to above. He falsely alleged that they had been subjects of a consolidation order. He tried them as if such order existed which made my case notes almost useless. He was thus in breach of Supreme Court rules which required that he see such order of consolidation before trying the cases in that way. By failing to do that, and by falsely alleging that such order existed, he is held to have been guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court. During proceedings before him, Spedding warned me not to bring to his attention that while I was cross examining Miss Carr in the witness box, that she had commenced to swear statements contrary to that which she had previously made while I carried out that cross examination. Mr. Spedding warned me that it would do me no good by drawing those facts to his attention. There followed a huge catalogue of events during those proceedings before him, which proved time and time again that I would not be allowed justice. His approved transcript of judgement a copy of which is repeated in the documents, which accompany this letter, is further proof that he had deliberately set about to pervert the course of justice. The Newcastle County Court has refused to allow me access to audio tape recordings of the proceedings before then Recorder John.H. Fryer-Spedding. By taking such action, it is shown that those responsible for such decision, are protecting the crimes that have been carried out by the former Recorder. Following his acts to pervert the course of justice, John Fryer-Spedding made what evidence will show was a sudden decision to retire at the same time as my having reported some of his perverse acts to then Lord Chancellor Mackay. He too failed in what was clearly his duty to act on those matters and by doing so became a party to that perversion of the course of justice.

.

12. I applied to the London Appeal Court for leave to appeal the judgement of John H. Fryer-Spedding in the matter of the three above-mentioned civil court actions. The substantive files, which I supplied to that court for use in my application went missing. When I informed the court that the files had been sent by recorded delivery they were then found. I went before Lords Justices Auld and Pill in the matter of my application for leave to appeal Spedding's judgement. They were made aware that the case had not been subject of a consolidation order as Spedding had falsely alleged and as such the proceedings before him had been unlawful in the basis of that single fact alone. They were also made aware by evidence that I had supplied to them for use in that application that Spedding had carried out many deliberate other deliberate acts which were clearly meant to pervert the course of justice. I referred to their Lords justices the possibility that Freemasonry may have been responsible for the injustice I was suffering which had increased following my contribution to the "Nolan Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary." I believe it was Lord Justice Auld who then went to some lengths to attempt to allay my concerns about Freemasonry. Though there were three separate cases at issue for such application for leave to appeal, I was only given the time normally allowed for one such case to present my case for leave to appeal. Despite knowing that the three cases before Spedding had been unlawfully tried as a consolidated action, their Lords Justices refused my application for leave to appeal his judgement. Later, when I required that their Lords Justices declare any membership of Freemasonry as they were aware that I had taken part in the "Nolan Enquiry" and was active in publicising concerns about the influence of Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary, they would not disclose that information. Under Article 6,(1) of the European Human Rights Convention I am entitled to a hearing before an impartial body. The judges I have mentioned herein, despite knowing my background in regard to the subject of Freemasonry, have all failed or refused outright to give such information to me as to whether or not they are masons. By doing so they have suppressed information which would allow me to decide whether or not the hearings over which they presided could have been regarded as being impartial. The ruling made in the Lord Hoffman/Pinochet case has in latter years backed the principle of the requirements of impartial courts. The judges I name herein are thus shown to be in contempt of the requirement and general principle that they must be impartial to the proceedings before them. The ruling under the Lord Hoffman/ Pinochet case equally applies to my situation but I am denied the principle upheld by that ruling. This must be a good example of one law for some and another law for others and an example of double standards openly being exercised by our courts.
13. In January of 1999 District Judge Jones sitting at the Durham County Court granted a bankruptcy order against me. Solicitor Alison Stott and Miss Shirley Carr were the applicants for my bankruptcy. Both are shown by evidence to have been involved in fraud and conspiracy to defraud me. John Fryer-Spedding had allowed Miss Carr substantive perjury for use in her single civil law action against me and in defence of my two actions against her. The bankruptcy order was made on the grounds that I had not paid the costs awarded against me by John Fryer-Spedding in the matter of the three civil actions between Miss Carr and me. At the first aborted hearing for my alleged bankruptcy District Judge Jones said to me several times that I had "upset Mr. Cuthbertson." The Mr. Cuthbertson he referred to was District Judge Cuthbertson. I have mentioned District Judge Cuthbertson in other parts of this letter. District Judge Jones was in making those remarks to me shown not to have been impartial. I was unable to attend the second bankruptcy application hearing before District Judge Jones. The first hearing before him had in any event proved that he was not impartial in the matter of the bankruptcy application being heard before him.
14. In 1995 and 1996 I supplied the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, now renamed the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, with considerable hard evidence to back up allegations that I had made about solicitors Alison Stott, Paul Graney, and Nancy Bone. They failed to act on that evidence for a period exceeding four years. I then complained to the Legal Services Ombudsman Ann Abraham about the conduct of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in relation to the complaints I had made to them about the conduct of the solicitors I name herein. After her involvement she informed me that my files held at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors had gone missing. There was some speculation as to what might have happened to them but the Ombudsman agreed that their fate was unknown. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors had never made me aware that my files held by them had gone missing. The problem of missing files which concerned civil court matters between Miss Shirley Carr and I was by that time becoming an all too frequent occurrence. Other files, which were very material to my cases, went missing from the offices of solicitors Smith & Graham of Claypath, Durham. They informed me that despite extensive searches my files had not been found. They wrote that my files had gone missing in what they called the Bermuda Triangle of documentation.
15. I appealed the alleged bankruptcy order made by District Judge Jones. Mr. Peter Leaver QC heard it in the London Appeal Court in October of 1999. I had previously supplied him with substantive evidence that John H. Fryer-Spedding had unlawfully tried the civil cases referred to herein on which the basis of my alleged bankruptcy had arisen. I supplied him with substantive evidence of the use of perjury used by Miss Shirley Carr during the civil actions between us. That perjury had been allowed by John H. Fryer-Spedding and in fact there is substantive evidence showing that to be fact. I also supplied Mr. Leaver QC with other information and evidence to show that fraud had been used in the order made against me by John H. Fryer-Spedding and that in the circumstances there was no question as to my bankruptcy which resulted from the order and criminal acts of others who included among them John Fryer-Spedding, Miss Shirley Carr and solicitor Alison Stott. Mr. Leaver told me that he was not interested in that evidence and refused my appeal. He then awarded further costs against me. Within two days of the publication on the front page of the local Press of my alleged bankruptcy, my father who was extremely distraught about my situation collapsed and died. I lay full responsibility for his death at the feet of those I name herein. I also lay full responsibility to those same people named herein who have been responsible for my torture, stress, suffering, and resultant rapid deterioration to my health etc., resulting from their criminal acts which they have applied to me.
16. Early in the year 2000 the European Court of Human Rights agreed to investigate the evidence and details of the injustices I had suffered at the hands of those I name herein. There is a considerable amount of other matters concerning the injustice of which I am subject, which needs to be reported to them. Some of which I detail below.
17. Following the denial of justice I started to publish evidence of the corruption of which I am subject. Following that I became subject of allegations of harassment by my civil law opponent Miss Shirley Carr. I had reported to her employer, The National Contributions Agency at Longbenton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the fact that she had been spending considerable time at home and with other activities which seemed to conflict with what she had termed in the civil courts was her "full time" occupation as a National Insurance Inspector. Miss Carr had also alleged that I had approached and threatened her in the Sunderland County Court. The second allegation was blatantly untrue and there was no evidence whatsoever to back up that allegation. My trial for the alleged harassment of Miss Carr took place at the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court. This is the same court with the same Clerk to its Justices as had demonstrated it willingness to act outside of the law following my having been battered and following that having been struck by a car that was deliberately driven at me. The Clerk to its Justices, Mr. Bavidge, would have been well aware of my allegations throughout the years that it had conducted illegal proceedings there in 1986 relative to the above matter.. I admitted to the court that I had reported Miss Carr's activities to her employer, which seemed to conflict with her "full time employment as a National Insurance Inspector". I believe that it was my duty to report such matters when there was a possible question of fraud relative to the public purse. Two instances of where I had reported my concerns of Miss Carr's activities to the National Contributions Agency at Longbenton, Newcastle that was one basis of the prosecution case against me, were proved and agreed to be true. Despite this fact, Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court ruled that by reporting such matters to the National Contributions Agency I was guilty of the harassment of Miss Shirley Carr. I was also found guilty of allegedly approaching and threatening Miss Carr at the Sunderland County Court. Both allegations required to be proved for a successful prosecution case. The second allegation was not proved but the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court found me guilty of it. That was in November of 1998. The court awarded a very heavy fine. The court also ordered that I was not to be allowed to report any of my concerns regarding Miss Shirley Carr's activities to her employer other than directly through the Minister responsible for Social Security being at present Mr. A. Darling. My attempts to contact him at the times Miss Carr's activities continued to give rise to my concerns have failed. Despite telephoning the House of Commons in attempts to report matters then underway giving rise to my concern, I have been told that Mr. Darling will not speak with anyone by telephone unless he is acquainted with them.

Several weeks ago a file, which was clearly supplied to me in error was released by solicitor Mr. Charles David Hughes of Sunderland. This was the solicitor who acted in my appeal against my conviction for harassment. I had been represented at my trial before Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court by solicitor Mr. A. N. Jackson of A.N. Jackson and Co, Hartlepool. Contained in the file was a letter addressed to Mr. A.N. Jackson from Mr. Head of the Washington, Tyne-Wear, Crown Prosecution Service. The letter stated that Northumbria police had traced a security officer employed at the Sunderland County Court at the time Miss Shirley Carr had alleged that I had approached and threatened her. The letter confirmed that when the security officer was questioned about Miss Carr's allegation against me, he had told police that he could recall being asked to be in the court at that time as a precaution. He had gone on to say that from his knowledge nothing of note had occurred in that court. The contents of that letter were clearly very material to my defence but although both the solicitors I name herein were in possession of that letter, none had made the court or me aware of its existence. This amounted to the suppression of material evidence in a criminal trial, which is of course a criminal act. Its suppression was to be further evidence of what is none other than a conspiracy against me, which I am certain, has its roots in Freemasonry. There is of course the question of why Northumbria police had proceeded with my prosecution when the statement of an officer of the Sunderland County Court, deliberately asked to be in the court at the time of Miss Carr's false allegation against me, had verified that her allegation against me had been yet another of the many lies she had used clearly with the intent to cause me harm. There is the additional question as to why Washington Crown Prosecution Service were also party to my prosecution despite being aware of the very material statement that had been made by the Sunderland County Court Security Officer.

18. On 9^th March 1999 I was arrested at my home by two police officers from Northumbria police. They arrested me under their allegation that I had breached the order made at the Houghton-le Spring Magistrates Court preventing me reporting any of my concerns relative to Miss Carr direct to the National Contributions Agency at Newcastle. I made a statement to those police officers denying that I had breached the order I refer to. My statement was not written down by any of those two police officers. Before I was taken into custody I asked that I be allowed to inform someone of where I was to be taken and detained. They told me that would be allowed when I arrived at the police station which I eventually to learn was at Washington, Tyne-Wear. I also asked that a doctor attend to me as the shock of again being faced with yet more false allegations had resulted in me feeling ill. I already have life threatening illnesses and Northumbria Police were well aware of that fact. They said that would be attended to at Washington Police station. I made further statements to both police officers while I was being taken to the Washington, Tyne-Wear, police station. Again none of which was written down by any of those police officers. One of them clearly found my situation to be very amusing and funny to the point of finding it difficult to hold back a laugh. On arrival at Washington Police Station my requests for a doctor and for someone to be informed of where I was being held were denied to me. I also asked for a solicitor to attend, that too was denied to me. After more than two hours in detention I was on the point of collapse. Only then did the custody sergeant on duty at that time decide to telephone a doctor. The doctor told the sergeant that I must be taken immediately to hospital. The two police officers that had arrested me were summoned to return to the police station. They took me to Sunderland Royal Hospital and effectively dumped me outside of its casualty wing where I then made my own way inside the building. The hospital confirmed that I was seriously ill. Later, without any police interview whatsoever having taken place, I was charged again with alleged harassment of Miss Shirley Carr. I was not charged with the alleged breach of the order made by Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court referred to herein and of which I had been arrested.. This time Miss Carr had thrown in a false allegation of common assault for good measure. In the circumstances, my arrest on March 9^th 1999 was unlawful. I had not breached the order made by Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court in November of 1998.

I elected to be tried by jury for this the second false allegation made against me by Miss Carr. In total I appeared at both Durham and Newcastle Crown Courts in readiness for trial on four occasions. On one of those occasions I had collapsed and was taken again seriously ill to Dryburn Hospital, Durham City. On the other occasions the listings for my trial was removed without reason. In October of 2000 following my trial again having been taken out of listing at the Durham Crown Court, the barrister for the Crown Prosecution approached my barrister Mr. Neil Addison. He told Mr. Addison that there was a possible deal on offer. It was that if I would remove certain material from my Internet web site, which in fact publishes some of the facts and evidence supporting the allegations I make herein, they in turn would consider dropping their action against me. Their possible deal on offer is confirmed by evidence contained within the attendance notes of my solicitor. The Washington Crown Prosecution Service had this time attempted to blackmail me. I later refused the possible deal on offer as I wanted to be tried by jury to allow me to show evidence that Miss Carr had again made false allegations against me. Judge James stated in the Teesside Crown Court Court where I had agreed to attend despite it being some considerable distance from my home, that the prosecution case against me was not in the public interest and would be nothing but a pen pushing exercise and a waste of public money. He had asked as to whether I would want a tape recording of an alleged incident relative to the charge against me to be played to the jury. I had agreed that I would require that. The tape recording which the Washington Crown Prosecution Service held and had failed to hand over a copy of it to my defence barrister, had almost certainly been subject of editing. Evidence is available to show that Miss Carr had previously practised that to have me imprisoned for alleged contempt of court in 1996 mentioned earlier in this letter.

Following my refusal to accept attempted blackmail by Washington, Tyne-Wear, Crown Prosecution Service, they dropped their alleged case against me leaving the matter to lie on file. My barrister Mr. Neil Addison told me that the action of the Crown Prosecution Service in doing that amounted to a not guilty verdict.

19. On 30^th June 1999 following Northumbria Police having agreed to investigate my various allegations against Miss Shirley Carr, John Fryer-Spedding and others, I attended at the office of my solicitor Mr. Charles David Hughes of 58 Frederick Street, City of Sunderland. Northumbria Police had previously ignored matters of a criminal nature, which I had reported to them. Acting Detective Inspector Steven Coxon had been appointed to investigate my various complaints of crime I reported to Northumbria Police. Also in attendance at the office of my solicitor Mr. Hughes was another police officer who was taking notes. During the more than two hour long meeting I detailed a huge catalogue of criminal acts used against me by those, some of whom are named in this letter. At the end of that meeting acting Detective Inspector S. Coxon asked me if I was aware of the seriousness of the allegations I was making. My reply was that I was aware of that and was pleased that he too regarded them that way. I was never asked to place my signature against those various allegations and statements that I made to acting Detective Steven Coxon. Another police force were later to confirm to me that for that meeting with detective Steven Coxon to have been official and formal I would have been required to place my signature against the allegations and statements I made to him then on 30^th June 1999. In fact, it is shown that acting Detective Steven Coxon never carried out any investigations into the allegations I had made to him. Facts show that it was never acting detective Inspector Steven Coxon's intent to carry out such investigations in the matters of what I had detailed to him at our meeting on 30th June 1999.
20. On the 23^rd August 1999 I supplied Houghton-le-Spring Tyne-Wear, Police Station with considerable evidence to back up the allegations that I had made to acting detective Inspector Steven Coxon on the 30^th June of that year. The evidence showed beyond all reasonable doubt that former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding had taken deliberate action to pervert the course of justice in the matter of the civil law cases between Miss Carr and myself under Durham County Court case numbers DH400950, DH400898 and Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court case number NE401650. The evidence also showed beyond all reasonable doubt that Miss Shirley Carr had been allowed by Spedding the use of very material perjury for use in her defence of my two my actions against her and in her prosecution of me under case NE40160. The evidence also confirmed many of the facts, which I detail in this letter.

The receipt of that evidence was given by the police officer that had accepted it from me. Northumbria Police in response to the receipt of that evidence took no action.

21. In December of 1999 I attended at Washington, Tyne-Wear, Police Area Command

Headquarters. I was to be seen by Chief Detective Superintendent Atkinson. I took with me further evidence of the allegations I had made to Northumbria Police relative to matters contained herein. On arrival at Washington Police Headquarters, Chief Detective Superintendent Atkinson told me that he had just been in contact with the Home Office. He also told me that they had informed him not to take any action on the evidence I then was to take to him. I had previously made known to the Superintendent the purpose of my visit to Washington Police Area Command Headquarters. He said that the reason the Home Office had instructed him not to act on that evidence was because it concerned perjury and acts to pervert the course of justice related to the civil actions between Miss Shirley Carr and me. His implication was that as the matters I had previously reported to him by telephone concerned civil cases then police would not act on allegations of perjury etc., and acts to pervert the course of justice used in such cases.

22. I complained in 1999 to the Northumbria Police Authority about the conduct of Northumbria Police. I made that complaint under section 86 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Despite agreeing that my complaints about the conduct of Northumbria Police also included within them the conduct of its Chief Constable Mr. C. Strachan, Northumbria Police Authority wrote to me saying that the Deputy Chief Constable of Northumbria would be the one who would investigate my complaints. This too was highly improper. A Deputy Chief Constable cannot investigate his Chief Constable. In any event, no such investigation into my complaints to the Northumbria Police Authority has taken place. This is further evidence that justice is being denied to me. Again, I attribute this further injustice to corruptive elements of Freemasonry operating within the justice system. It is my understanding that the Chief constable of Northumbria is a mason. This being so, the oaths he would have made on becoming a mason are in direct conflict with my own interests. Such oaths include that a mason will defend Freemasonry and his Masonic brothers against all others. There is of course the fact that such an oath can often be in direct conflict to the public interest. This too is clearly the situation with judges who are masons. These are further reasons for a compulsory register to be set up for all those employed within the public sector to declare membership of any Secret Society of which Freemasonry ranks high amongst them. It is futile for Freemasonry to attempt to argue that they are not a Secret Society. Common sense alone determines that they are and that it is the secrecy element which sustains and often protects them.
23. On May 18 2001, I had a meeting with three senior detectives at Northumbria Police Headquarters. Accompanying me was a writer/author and documentary film producer. The detectives informed me that they were not going to action my complaints against some of the Northumbria police officers I had named to them because too much time had elapsed. It was Northumbria Police who were responsible for the lapse of time and for failing to take action earlier on what I had reported to them. They did however agree to investigate some of the matters I have reported to them. They also said that they had decided that it should be Durham Constabulary who should investigate the matters relative to the perversion of the course of justice, perjury etc., which had resulted in securing an unlawful bankruptcy order against me. The question which I would raise now is why did Northumbria Police not make that decision two years ago, following my then having provided them along with evidence of my allegations many of which are contained within this letter?
24. Until quite recently I was a member of Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne-Wear, Town Council. The. Bankruptcy order made against me in the way, which I detail herein, prevented me from continuing as a Town Councillor. It may be significant that members of a councillor family by the name of Blackburn and Simpson were instrumental in my becoming a Councilor some several years ago. Two members of the Blackburn councillor family nominated me to become a councillor following their daughter having made a decision that she no longer wished to become a councillor. If she had accepted her nomination as councillor, it would have meant that five out of my six local Ward councilors would have been members of the same family. Six months or so after I became a Hetton-le-Hole Town Councillor, the City of Sunderland Draft Unitary Development Plan came before the Council for consideration and discussion. Hetton-le-Hole is included within the City of Sunderland area of jurisdiction. Land owned by Councillor James Blackburn, a mason, was included in the Draft Plan for proposed housing. His mother councillor Joyce Blackburn and his brother in law Councillor Mr. C.J. Simpson another mason, spoke in favor of the proposed housing. None of these councillors, including the father of Mr. James Blackburn, had declared any interest in the Draft Plan. When I realised that I spoke out against it. At a later meeting of the Town Council specifically called to discuss the Draft City of Sunderland Unitary Development Plan, councillor's Joyce Blackburn and Simpson again spoke in favour of the housing proposals. Again, none of those four councillors I have named above declared any interest as was required of them. I spoke out again that not only had they not declared such interest but also two of them had spoken in favour of the housing proposal under the Plan. Following that, councillor C.J. Simpson demanded that the meeting be brought to a close and that the Press and public be asked to leave the Council Chambers. Then councillor's Blackburn's and Simpson shouted abuse at me saying that I should not have mentioned their none declaration of interests in the Plan under discussion and consideration. Councillor John Steel who was chairing a special meeting demanded by councillor C.J.Simpson following the Press and public having left the Council Chambers, said that what was taking place was not a meeting at all and that he was leaving. I attempted to leave with him but councillor James Blackburn barred my way to the exit door. His mother and father councillor's Samuel and Joyce Blackburn took hold of me and started to push me away from the door. I was supported with my walking stick and both these councillor's had taken hold of my clothes and were shaking me. Councillor James Blackburn approached me and also started to push me away from the exit door. He then drew his arm right back in readiness to strike me to the head. He was prevented from doing so by councillor Wandless who took hold of him. Following their assault on me they continued to make derogatory and insulting remarks about and to me while I made my way to my car.

I reported that matter to Northumbria Police by letter. It was a Superintendent Williams who was appointed to investigate it. Later he telephoned me to say that as he did not think any of the other councillor's would say what they had seen of the assault on me then he had decided not to take any action on it. There had in fact been around some seventeen councillors who witnessed the assault made upon me in Hetton-le-Hole Council Chambers by those I name herein.

Before that Council meeting, mason Councillor James Blackburn had approached and asked me if I owned my own house. I replied that I did. He refused to say why he had asked that question. In the light that my alleged bankruptcy had been engineered by fraud etc. detailed within this letter, I have came to realize that what mason Councillor James Blackburn had probably implied in that question he had asked me was that unless I kept quiet on the matter of their none declaration of interests in the Draft Plan under discussion, then my home would be at risk. Did that risk involve the actions of masons within our judiciary? Circumstances suggest that it probably did and that it is they, who I name herein, who are responsible for perverting the course of justice which ended in the order for my bankruptcy and subsequent death of my father.

25. I am now informed that a caution at HM Land Registry has been placed on my land and home. The applicants for it are the trustees of my alleged bankruptcy granted in the way and circumstances that I detail herein. I presume that the lodging of such caution is the first step in securing my home and land. As my alleged bankruptcy has been obtained following the use of fraud, perjury, acts to pervert the course of justice etc., by those I have named herein, then I will not under any circumstances accept a bankruptcy order obtained by the use of any one of these ways. Justice has been deliberately denied to me in ways, which amount to the clear and deliberate use of tyranny. That former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding was forefront in his use of tyranny and blatant acts to pervert the course of justice to fabricate grounds to rule against me is proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the considerable available evidence. I am in these circumstances entitled to defend myself against tyranny as mentioned in the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Britain placed its signature to that declaration. In the event that an attempt is made to take my land and home from me then I will respond in any way that may be required at the time to prevent that from happening. The odds may be impossible in preventing that from taking place, but that will not deter me from taking any such required action.
26. Britain remains second only to Turkey in the European League for the abuse of Human Rights. This remains a poor reflection on the fairer Britain you promised us all before the last General Election. That which I have reported herein to you is not the full extent of the injustice I have been subject of.

In recent weeks I understand that a man was shot in the head and killed by police while he slept. I can only regard this as further proof that Britain's justice system, or rather lack of it, is out of control. Several months ago I understand that a man was shot dead by police in North Yorkshire while he stood in woods holding an air rifle. Why did the police officer that shot the man dead not shoot to wound as a warning for him to put down the air rifle? The air rifle obviously presented little threat to an officer holding a high powered and high technology rifle. I am in contact with many such victims of judicial and police abuse. I know because of this that we have a severe and dangerous problem, which would seem to be disregarded by Lord Chancellor Irvine, and Lord Chief Justice Bingham. Equally following my own experiences, I can supply substantial evidence that the purpose of the Court Service is to help cover up corruption being carried out within our courts. Both your own Office and that of the Home Secretary has previously ignored the matters with supporting evidence that I report herein. If I should suffer further injury or death as a result of my defiance to accept injustice by the use of the crimes I detail herein, then perhaps your conscience will allow that? It was Jesus Christ who said, "What if a man should gain the whole world and lose his soul?" This question should be asked of the many corruptive elements now blatantly operating within our justice system. Clearly such corruption has its roots in the financial rewards that it can bring. It is shown by considerable evidence that even the London High Court will ignore evidence of corruption being practised by some judges in the lower courts. How long will this be allowed to continue before the bubble finally bursts? As I wrote at the outset of this letter it is you as Prime Minister who ultimately has the responsibility to see that judicial and police crime are dealt with when these things are reported to you and there is evidence of such things. I would say that the main foundation of any democracy has to be its justice system. Once that justice system deliberately decides to deny a man justice then we do have a very serious problem. This is happening now Mr. Prime Minister.

27. Finally, it was a District Judge Grills sitting at the Harrogate County Court in 1998 who granted my wife a decree nisi order. He never gave me the opportunity to reply to my wife's petition for divorce. By doing that he was in clear breach of his judicial oath of fairness he made to the Crown. To breach such oath amounts to an act of high treason. I have declared in these circumstances that I remain lawfully married and that my wife's divorce is therefore unlawful. The subject of Freemasonry too was raised but not by me during the hearing of my wife's petition for divorce. Judge Grills claims that he is not a mason but will not confirm or deny that he has or is visiting any Masonic Hall or establishment. I have made known by letter to the Harrogate, North Yorkshire County Court that I do not accept the validity of the divorce, which has been allowed. Their reply was that my letter formally declaring that the divorce is invalid had been placed on their files. The simplicity and general ease of which divorces are allowed in our courts, in circumstances where judges are prepared to breach their judicial oath of fairness, gives rise to further concern by others who have reported similar things to me. In fact I think it correct to say that evidence suggests that divorce is being used as a general lucrative business interest by solicitors and possibly by some judges to allow the assets of the divorced couple to be converted into legal costs. It is in the financial interests of solicitors that people do divorce. Judges who hear divorce applications will have already benefited from the conversion of the couples assets to legal costs at the time they were practising solicitors. I think it true to say that on becoming judges, they will be well aware of what is expected of them relative to matters concerning divorce. This is a most unhealthy situation.

The matters I have reported herein to you are true. You can easily have machinery put into action to confirm this as being fact. It is for these reasons that I will hold my ground against even impossible odds. My health has suffered considerably because of what now amounts to mob rule by some police officers and judges. If my conscience did not rule me then I might look for the nearest rock to crawl under to protect me from people such as those I have named herein. I will never look for such cover though I am aware that many do under similar circumstances. I am also aware of those who have died while fighting against the injustice being dealt out by our courts on a very regular basis.

Your office can decide what happens to me now. If you fail to act on what I have reported to you then I can only presume that you have no concern for acts of tyranny such as these I have detailed to you. The consequences arising out of any such attitude will be serious not only for democracy in the United Kingdom, but also for the British people, most of whom are totally unaware that similar things I report here to you are taking place on a very large scale. A lady Usher I met at Durham Cathedral told me that she used to baby sit you. She said that she thought you were a Christian. You have a chance now to put any such Christian teachings into practice.

I await your response to the matters raised within this letter. Because I consider that the matters contained here should be in and for the public interest, I will also publish this letter to the news media. I would much rather die fighting tyranny than live under its rule. To this possible end, I would wish the public to be aware of the circumstances leading up to my possible demise. That in the circumstances would I think be only right and proper to allow the general public at least an opportunity to know that such things as I detail here can and are happening here right now in Great Britain.

Yours sincerely

Mr. M. Kellett

CC. to The European Court of Human Rights,

CC .to others including publication on the world Internet.