Letter delivered to the Durham County Court on the evening of Saturday the 17th of August 2002.
The Durham County Court
To Be Published For And In The General Public Interest.
My reference MK/JU/ Y001
Saturday 17th August 2002.
In February 2002 I delivered to you a claim which I made for damages against the above court. That claim is dated the 26th of February 2002. You have never acknowledged or replied to that claim. I consider that it was your public duty to have at least acknowledged the receipt of my claim against your court. You will be aware that it contains some very serious allegations of judicial crime carried on there and made by me.
In my claim against your court I set out the reasons for my having made it. I enclose with this letter a further copy of my claim to your court again. That claim also gives my reasons for making it. A copy of it was supplied to the European Court Of Human Rights several months ago. It along with other matters I understand may be examined by the Court within a few months. If you require the European Human Rights Court reference number I can supply it to you.
You have the right of course to reply to my allegations against your court and the Newcastle County Court in the matter of cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650. Indeed I consider it your public duty to do so. You will be aware from the court records of these cases that contrary to the false allegation of former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding that the three above cases had been consolidated, there had been no consolidation of the three above cases. At the time he falsely tried them as a single case there was in fact an order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips on the 1st of June 1994, sitting at the Durham County Court refusing an application for consolidation of the three above cases made by Miss Shirley Carr. Despite this fact, he tried the three above actions as a single case thus causing me considerable damage. He went further. During the proceedings before him in the matter of cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 he carried out many further acts which were clearly also meant to pervert the course of justice. Some of former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding's acts are described within my reply to his approved transcript of judgement. The latter document and my replies to it were contained within my signed Statement of Truth dated September 29th 1999. I have supplied you with a copy of that Statement. If I have placed lies within that Statement of Truth then it is your public duty to take appropriate action against me. If you accept what I write in it as the truth then you are required to take action to assist in righting my situation.
From the Durham County Court Records you will also be aware that Deputy District Judge Baird heard my appeal from an order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips. This as you will know was a highly illegal act. A Deputy District Judge has no power whatsoever to hear any appeal let alone one from the higher court. When I brought that matter to the attention of the Durham County Court, no action was taken either against Deputy District Judge Baird or others who were aware of what had taken place. Instead, Deputy District Judge Baird was allowed to rule in the first hearing in case NE401650 held at the Newcastle County Court. Had I recognised this man I would have refused to allow him to hear the case. He was in the circumstances a man who had carried out a criminal act against me which I had highlighted to your court and he could not in those circumstances have been independent and impartial to the proceedings before him. The latter is a requirement as you know of those who rule in our courts. True to his earlier form, he went on to cause me further harm in case NE401650. Despite my disabilities, he refused entry by my wife into his chambers so that she could assist me. That of course was a further serious act on his part. I am allowed by law to be assisted in any legal proceedings by someone of my choosing. He went even further. He allowed Miss Shirley Carr, my civil opponent, the use of two advocates at that time. One being a Mr Kevin Kerrigan and the other a Professor Kenny, both were then employed by the University of Northumbria Law School.
Then there is the matter of District Judge Scott-Phillips. According to the former manager of the Durham County Court, Mr I Cuthbertson, District Judge Scott-Phillips had told him that he had never made an order allowing me to visit the office of then solicitor Nancy Bone so that I could take copies from my files which she held by lien. The files were of course required in the above cases. I was aware that statement was also untrue but at the time of my complaint to the above court on this matter I was unable to prove it. When Nancy Bone was eventually struck from the register of solicitors my files which she had held were eventually returned to me. In those files were documents in which Nancy Bone agreed that I had been granted an order by the Durham County Court to visit her office to take copies from my files. By that time it was too late to be of assistance to me.
I have of course previously made you aware of the above facts. You do not appear to have acted upon them. Perhaps I am wrong about this? These matters are of course for the police to act upon. According to Durham Constabulary, when a judge lies, as I have indicated to you that they have, they are judicial decisions and are therefore protected by law. This I am certain that you will know is an outright lie. If a judge uses false instruments including lies to arrive at his or her decision then they are not protected by law. Have you anything to say on this matter?
I refer you to the information given to me in a recent meeting with UK law researcher Mr Laurence Bothwell. It is written as follows:
"Through the centuries from the Magna Carta through the Oaths of the Justices 1344 and Oaths of the Clerks of Chancery 1344 to the Legal Aids Act 1949 (Now the Access to Justice Act 1999), it has always been the common law, if not statutory, the duty of those connected with the administration of justice to variously investigate, repress, amend and report errors and abuses of justice to sufficiently high authority, such as the Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor and ultimately the King (or Queen) for an adequate/effective remedy. One maxim regards those who have knowledge of the wrong acts and, having the power to correct it, do nothing are taken to have committed the wrong act themselves."
In a letter from Fraser Kemp MP Baroness Scotland QC, Parliamentary spokesperson for the Lord Chancellors Department says that I can complain to the Lord Chancellor about the personal conduct of a judge. She was supplied with a copy of my Statement of Truth signed by me on the 29th of September 1999 which details considerable judicial crime used against me. She does however say that the crime reported in that Statement of Truth of which I refer, does not come under the category of "personal conduct". I find this impossible to accept as fact or anything to do with justice. As manager of the Durham County Court you will be well aware of the liabilities and responsibilities of a lord Chancellor. Do you hold that the Lord Chancellor has no responsibility to act on judicial crime such as that I have reported to you? In any event who do you hold as being responsible to the public to act on matters of judicial crime?
Have you any public duty to act on matters of judicial crime? If you accept that you do then who would you report such crime to?
I also enclose copies of letters that concern my present situation. One is a letter that I have received from solicitors Hay & Kilner, of Merchant House, 30 Cloth Market, Newcastle upon Tyne dated the 30th of July 2002. Another is my reply to the latter letter dated the 11th of August 2002. Further, I enclose another letter received from Hay & Kilner solicitors dated the 16th of August 2002. You will notice that it is implied that Hay & Kilner did not receive my reply to their letter of the 30th of July 2002 which is dated August the 11th 2002. I have of course some considerable doubts that Hay & Kilner solicitors had not received my letter of the latter date. I regard any acts arising to me from judicial criminal activities such as those I have reported to you as being in furtherance to the original criminal acts. Accordingly, I am allowed to protect myself and my property from any criminal activities or abuse whatsoever. You will see the situation being created here by the copy letters that I supply to you and it is, I understand, in your power to do something about it?
I have also alleged to the above court that my civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr used very material perjury in her defence to my action against her. I have further alleged to the above court that former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding both aided and abetted that perjury and indeed added to it himself. No appropriate action has been taken to investigate my allegations regarding this matter let alone act on them. Do you wish me to further elaborate on this use of crime as well? Have you any interest at all in it?
Then there is the additional matter of solicitor Alison Stott having appeared with Miss Shirley Carr at the Durham County Court over around a period of one and a half years. Alison Stott conducted matters in the above court as if she was acting as an advocate of Miss Shirley Carr. Then afterwards, in January of 1996, solicitor Alison Stott declared to the Newcastle County Court, presided over by then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, that she had not been acting for Miss Shirley Carr but had only been assisting her. This matter is fully covered by affidavits which are on the Durham County Court files. This is another very serious matter which is being ignored both by the courts and police. I will not allow this matter to be forgotten either.
We come also to the matter of when solicitor Alison Stott accepted work from the Durham County Court of preparing the judges bundles ready for trial. This was at a time when solicitor Alison Stott had no legal authority to accept any such work from the above court. She was only an assistant to Miss Shirley Carr not her advocate as she later agreed. It is shown that she secretly passed on the work of preparing the judges bundles to Miss Shirley Carr. Miss Carr later agreed that she deliberately left out documents from those bundles. Part of that documentation which she excluded from those bundles was her application and subsequent refusal by District Judge Scott-Phillips on the 1st of June 1994 refusing her application for consolidation of the three above cases.
I enclose copies herein of my claims and my reasons for making them against solicitor Alison Stott dated the 22nd of March 1999 and Miss Shirley Carr dated the 16th of March 1999. Both of these parties have ignored these claims. In the present circumstances I cannot consider the Durham County Court to be independent and impartial to my situation as required under the European Human Rights Convention. I cannot in these circumstances put these claims before the Durham County Court for resolution. In addition, by their failure to act on these matters, where they have received evidence of perjury used by Miss Carr, both the Durham and Northumbria Police forces are acting against the public interest. This complicates the present matter as well. Perhaps you can assist here?
Evidence shows that solicitor Alison Stott was aware that the above cases were not to be subject of consolidation. As an officer of the court she was aware that it was her duty to make the courts aware of this matter. She failed to do that. Even though solicitor Stott was aware of the latter facts, and there is evidence which proves this fact, she went on to act for Miss Shirley Carr in a bankruptcy application against me on the basis of my failure to pay the costs awarded against me by former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding who had previously used the false instruments I have reported to you to arrive at his judgement. The Office For The Supervision Of Solicitors told me that as Alison Stott's acts amounted to crime it was the duty of the police to investigate it. They refuse to do so. In fact Durham Constabulary falsely allege that Alison Stott has been investigated by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. You of course will be aware that crime carried out by a solicitor cannot be investigated by the Office For The Supervision of Solicitors. I believe that part of your duties are to report this matter to the police and for them to take appropriate action on it. Am I correct in this belief?
Britain agreed to set up independent and impartial tribunals or authorities established by law under the terms of our entry into the European Community. This is a requirement more so on matters concerning allegations of judicial crime. The matter becomes even more urgent and important when police forces, such as Durham Constabulary falsely alleged that when a judge lies it is a judicial decision and is therefore protected by law. Do you in the present circumstances I write to you about know of any independent and impartial authorities established by law that I can refer the above matters to? Up to now Mr Fraser Kemp MP has been unable to provide me with an answer to this question. Perhaps you can?
Again from my correspondence with Mr Fraser Kemp MP over this past year or so, it has been shown that there is no authority in the United Kingdom who will bear any responsibility to act on judicial crime such as that I have reported to you in cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650. In these circumstances this is a gross breach of the European Human Rights Convention and a gross breach of my rights as a European citizen. Until such times as my allegations, some of which I have made public above, are investigated by an independent and impartial tribunal or authority established by law as required under the European Human Rights Convention, then I declare that the judgement of former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding made in the cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 to be null and void. I also declare that all judgements and orders arising from the judgement of former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding also to be null and void. I have arrived at this decision because my conscience will not allow me to accept the judgement of what I consider to be none other than criminals working within the UK justice system. My decision has been assisted by the failure of any authority to act on my allegations of judicial crime. If my allegations are shown to be without foundation or untrue then I would have to agree that I should be held to be in contempt of court. I do not consider that contempt of court is a crime when there is sufficient evidence to show that such contempt is fully justified. I do not consider other than a normal thinking man would think in any other way.
The actions of those at the Durham and Newcastle County Courts I have name to you have already caused me massive damage. That damage still continues. I also believe that they are to be held responsible for their part in the destruction of my thirty year marriage and the death of my father. If you as a manager of the Durham County Court wish to cause me further harm and damage then I cannot stop you from doing that. However, you as a public servant have responsibilities to the public and no responsibilities to protect any judge who has carried out acts of crime or misconduct at the Durham County Court. The decision has to be yours.
I ask for answers to the questions that I have placed in this letter to you. You are either part of the problem or you are part of the solution to it. I stand on the ground of justice not for the cause of injustice.
Mr Maurice Kellett
16A The Lyons
Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT
Go to scan pages index.
Go to home page.