|
|
A copy of the document below, duly signed, was included in my application to the European Court of Human Rights this year. The application is presently registered with the Court. There is however serious concerns amongst other victims of judicial corruption and crime in the UK when their cases have been ruled as being inadmissable without reasons for it being given. That was the situation with my first application to the European Court two years ago. The Italian Prime Minister joked that the European Court of Human Rights was controlled by masons and this is also giving rise to concern to many others victims. I have been informed that the European Court is or may be subject to investigation by the United Nations.
+++++++++++++++++
The Houghton-1e-Spring Magistrates Court
The Villa
Dairy Lane
Houghton-le-Spring
Tyne-Wear DH4 5BL
This is the Statement Of Truth of me Maurice Kellett residing at I6A The Lyons, Hetton-
le-Hole, Tyne-Wear, DH5 OHT.
I am aware that if I have knowingly or wilfully stated anything within my following statement which I know to be untrue then I render myself liable to prosecution by due process of law.
To the Houghton-1e-Spring Magistrates Court bench and the Clerk to the Justices in the matter of my summons to appear before it on the 14th December for none payment of a fine and costs under an harassment allegation conviction of Miss Shirley Carr and to others whom It may concern
In November of 1998 I appeared before the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court and was found guilty of the two charges made against me. One of those charges was that I had telephoned the employers of National Insurance Inspector Miss Shirley Carr to report at that time she was carrying out activities not consistent with what she said was her full time employment as a national Insurance Inspector. Miss Carr agreed to the court that she had in fact been carrying out those activities which I had reported to her employer. The Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court ruled that my having reported those acts to Miss Carr's employer, the National Contributions Agency, Longbenton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne was an act of harassment.
Barrister Mr A. Harle represented me in the above matter in the above court in November of 1998. Though the Harassment Act 1997 excludes acts carried out by persons to expose possible crime, that point was never made to the above court by barrister Harle. I was then and remain of the opinion that it was my lawful right and public duty to report such matters to Miss Carr's employer, when, as a public employee, there was the possibility that Miss Carr might have been defrauding the public purse. Video equipment was installed in the above court at the time of my trial for alleged harassment of Miss Carr. There was video evidence to support the fact that Miss Carr had earlier been allowed the use of material perjury during civil litigation between her and I by recorder John H Fryer-Spedding who went into retirement at the same time as I reported some of his criminal acts to pervert the course of justice to former Lord Chancellor Mackay. That video evidence was never shown to the above court nor was any of the supporting documentary evidence proving Miss Carr's use of perjury. Solicitor A.N. Jackson of Hartlepool, a member of the Freemasons, acted for me in the harassment allegation made by Miss Carr. He had told me that to show that video film to the court which along with documentary evidence proved beyond all reasonable doubt that recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had allowed and assisted Miss Carr's use of perjury during the proceedings before him would only invoke the wrath of the court. Despite that risk I wanted that evidence to be produced in my defence. Barrister Harle had also previously agreed that this evidence should be used in my defence
The other charge was that I had allegedly approached Miss Shirley Carr at the Sunderland County Court and threatened further harassment of her. I was also found guilty under that allegation. I had denied it. It was a further fabrication by Miss Carr and an extension to her previous use of perjury during the Civil proceedings between us. That perjury has and remains protected by Northumbria Police by their refusal to investigate it. The deliberate protection of crime by any police force is in itself a crime. A) B) C) D)
In around March of this year the copy of a letter dated the 14th May 1998 came into my possession, seemingly in error, when I collected a file from solicitors Harding Swinburne Jackson and Co of 58 Frederick Street, Citv of Sunderland. That firm of solicitors represented me in my appeal for the alleged harassment of Miss Carr. That letter was sent from Mr P. M. Heads of the Crown Prosecution Service at Coniston House, Washington, Tyne-Wear, to solicitor Mr A.N Jackson of Hartlepool. It contained the following statement:
The above letter of which I attach a copy hereto, related to the day that Miss Carr had falsely alleged that I had approached and threatened her at the Sunderland County Court. Its existence was never made known to me or the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court during my trial. Barrister Harle has since agreed that he was also in possession of that letter along with solicitor A N. Jackson. He has also agreed that he had not made the above court or myself aware of its existence or used it in any way in my defence. Neither was the security officer or the court clerk called upon to give evidence in my defence.
At my meeting with senior Northumbria police officers in May of this year they agreed that the contents of the above letter were material to my defence and that to deliberately suppress material evidence in any criminal trial was a criminal act. They agreed to investigate that matter. As in the case of the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court having acted outside of the law in 1986, details of which will follow, they have failed to investigate that matter as well. That is considered to have been a further act of deception carried out by Northumbria police officers. At that same meeting with Northumbria Police in May of this year, they also agreed that in the matter of Miss Carr's use of perjury during the civil proceedings between us, Durham Constabulary should be the authority to investigate it. At my subsequent meeting with Durham Constabulary I was told that they would not investigate any crime not committed within the Durham Constabulary area and would therefore not hear from me any allegations of the use of perjury used by Miss Carr in the civil proceedings between us at the Newcastle County Court. My subsequent letters regarding this matter to the Chief Constable of Northumbria, another reputed member of the Freemasons, have remained without reply despite my having referred to the Northumbria Police Authority at Gateshead Civic Centre. Gateshead Police Authority have failed to reply to my latest letter regarding my allegations of misconduct by Chief Constable Mr C Strachan or answer any of my questions contained within it.
I have been summonsed to appear before the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court on the 14th December 2001 for failing to pay a fine and costs amounting to the total sum of £1270 in the matter of my alleged harassment of Miss Shirley Carr. It is unlikely that I will be able to appear on health grounds and for the following reasons:
I cannot accept the jurisdiction of the above court. My reasons for this are as follows:
In 1986 following my having unearthed crime at then British Coal Estates Department, I was battered and then struck by a car that was deliberately driven at me by Mr Robert Willis Gardner Pringle. The matter went before the above court. Two magistrates sat on the bench on the day the matter was to be tried. One was named Mr William Moseley. I do not know the identity of the other. I was well acquainted with Mr Moseley having obtained work for the garage business which he then owned at Hetton-le-Hole. Mr Moseley was a social acquaintance of Robert Willis Gardner Pringle. Following the ruling of the court, Mr Pringle walked free. Some police officers have since expressed the opinion that Mr Pringles act of deliberately driving his car at me and striking me with it was an act of attempted murder.
On the evening of the matter being before the above court I went to see Mr Moseley at his home at Hetton Road, Houghton-le-Spring. He invited me in and we discussed the course of that day's events at the above court. When I asked him why he was sitting on the court bench when he was acquainted with both Mr Pringle and me, he replied that although he sat at the bench he had stood down from it. He agreed with me that it would have been improper for him to sit in judgement when he was acquainted with both myself and Pringle.
Later I was informed by a police Northumbria police officer that the remaining magistrate who had sat on the bench alongside Mr William Moseley was not qualified to act alone. On my approaches to the Clerk to the Justices at the above Court, then Mr Bavidge, he eventually informed me that he had been unable to learn whether the remaining magistrate was qualified to act alone as that magistrate was away on holiday. The police officer I have mentioned earlier, told me that Mr Bavidge would have been very aware that the remaining magistrate was not qualified to act alone. I contacted the Lord Chancellors Department to inquire as to the remaining magistrates qualifications to act alone. The reply which I received from a Mr J.J. Death of the Lord Chancellors Department made it clear that as the information I was seeking might be used for mischievous purposes, then I was not to be given it. In these circumstances Houghton-le-spring Magistrates Court is shown to have abused its power and was assisted in doing that by Mr J J Death of the Lord Chancellors Department. An abuse of power is a recognised act of tyranny which is a very serious crime under international law. It is also outlawed under the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Following my investigations I was satisfied that the influence of Freemasonry was responsible for the situation at the above Court in 1986. I would add that magistrate William Moseley was then in regular attendance at Hetton-le-Hole Masonic Hall and Robert Willis Gardner Pringle also supplied that establishment with fruit and vegetables for use in its functions. Some Northumbria police officers involved immediately after Mr Pringle's attack on me were also members of Freemasonry.
Since 1986 other Northumbria Police officers have confirmed to me that in 1986 there were no magistrates qualified to act alone at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court in that year. I am satisfied that they have told the truth.
In 1999 Northumbria Police agreed to investigate the matter of Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court having acted outside of the law In 1986. Long before that I had made both Members of Parliament Mr Roland Boyes and then later, his successor, Mr Fraser Kemp aware of the facts relative to the above unlawful court proceedings in 1986. I had also made it known to the Office of the Prime Minister. No action was taken by Northumbria Police to investigate those unlawful proceedings despite their promise to do that in 1999. At my further meeting with senior Northumbria police officers in May of this year they again agreed to investigate Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates having acted outside of the law in 1986. Again they have failed to do that. In the circumstances, they are shown on both occasions to have used deception as a probable means to protect those responsible for those unlawful proceedings at the above Court in 1986. Northumbria Police are in these circumstances shown to be protecting the criminal act of the abuse of power by the above court. That is an equally very serious crime.
At the time of my prosecution in November of 1998 for the alleged harassment of Miss Shirley Carr, Mr Bavidge was still Clerk to the Justices at the above court. My understanding is that William Moseley was also still sitting at the above court at that time. Over the years I have publicised what is now the accepted fact that Hougton-le-Spring Magistrates Court had acted outside of the law in 1986 and that both the Lord Chancellors Department and Northumbria police were deliberately ignoring that matter and therefore considered to be parties to the concealment of those unlawful proceedings. Both Mr Bavidge and Mr Moseley were well aware of my allegations as well. In these circumstances, I believe it a possibility that both of these parties could have influenced the outcome of proceedings at the above court at the time I was tried for the alleged harassment of Miss Shirley Carr. The remaining magistrate who had sat alongside William Moseley on the bench at the above court in 1986 has never been officially identified to me. It is clear that he too would have been aware that he was not qualified to act alone as in fact he had done. If he too was also sitting at the above Court at the time of my trial for alleged harassment of Miss Carr, I consider he too could have influenced its outcome.
The above court had already demonstrated its willingness to act outside of the law in 1986 in the circumstances I detail. That act was an flagrant violation of my rights under international law and most certainly not in the public interest. That too is the situation concerning Northumbria Police deliberately failing to carry Out their public duty to investigate it. I had made known my unwillingness to be tried by the above court for the alleged harassment of Miss Carr to solicitor Mr A N Jackson who ignored my concerns regarding that. Mr Jackson later admitted to me that he was a member of the Freemasons and belonged to what he referred to as a Judicial Masonic Lodge.
In 1996 I contributed to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. That Committee was headed by Lord Nolan. I was in contact with him until January of 1998 when he then informed me that he was returning to being a member of the Law lords and must thereafter remain impartial. I never made any secret of these latter facts. In my appeal against conviction for the alleged harassment of Miss Shirley Carr the Newcastle Appeal Court bench had been made aware of my contribution to the Nolan Enquiry and that in the circumstances I required under Article 6 (1) of the European Human Rights Convention a declaration that the Appeal Court bench were required to declare any membership of Freemasonry. After retiring for half an hour the bench returned and refused outright to make the necessary declaration to show that it was impartial to the proceedings before it as is required under the European Human Rights Convention. I was represented at that appeal by barrister Mr Neil Addison. He was aware that my reason for reporting Miss Carr to her employer, the National Contributions Agency was because possible crime was involved. He ridiculed that reason and failed to put that forward to the Appeal Court bench. He has since admitted that he was not in possession of the letter I have referred to earlier which was sent from the Crown Prosecution Service to solicitor Mr A N Jackson dated the 14th May 1998. The Newcastle Appeal Court bench refused my appeal.
The Newcastle Crown Court agreed that there was a case for referring the matter to the London Appeal Court. Barrister Addison informed me that the refusal by the Newcastle Appeal Court bench to disclose any membership of Freemasonry was included in my appeal to the London Court. He confirmed in writing that he only included the subject after my insistence that it should be included. He informed me that the London Appeal Court had ruled it no relevance to my appeal. Barrister Addison was of the opinion at that time that such refusal by the Newcastle Appeal Court bench to disclose any membership of Freemasonry was a breach of Article 6(1) of the European Human Rights Convention and that regardless of the outcome of the London High Court appeal the matter should be referred to the European Court of Human Rights. He was also of the opinion that the matter of the none disclosure of Freemasonry by the courts should be included in a Petition to the House of Lords. Following the letter of 14th May 1998, I have mentioned earlier coming to light, he informed me that he did not wish to act for me further. Barrister Addison say's that the London Appeal Court refused leave to appeal my case to the House of Lords. I think it reasonable in the circumstances that they would be expected to do that. Which court would agree to its ruling being subject to scrutiny by others? Barrister Addison has not disclosed to me whether or not he had asked the London Appeal Court bench whether they were prepared to disclose any membership of Freemasonry as would reasonably be expected in the circumstances.
The Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court did abuse its power in 1986 thus causing me considerable damage. Stemming from its criminal act of the abuse of power, the above court has been responsible for further very serious damage to me resulting from my attempts to obtain justice and have the abuse of power by the above court investigated. Those attempts have only resulted in further abuse of power by Northumbria police and members of the judiciary who are aware that I am publicising the above courts criminal act and other crime used against me.
In the above circumstances my conscience will not allow me to accept the jurisdiction of the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court. It is not in the public interest that I should do so. It is in the public interest that a full enquiry by a fully independent body or tribunal should be set up as a matter of urgency to ascertain whether I alone have been the victim of crime of the above court or whether there have been other victims of the above court under similar circumstances. It is also in the public interest that there be an enquiry into the conduct of Northumbria police by an independent body for their conduct in protecting judicial crime and their refusal to investigate the crime of perjury' used by Miss Shirley Carr during the civil proceedings between us.
Member of Parliament Mr Fraser Kemp is fully aware of my allegations made against the above court and crime carried out against me by others including police officers and members of the judiciary. He has informed me that the Rt. Hon. Baroness of Scotland QC Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellors Office has referred some matters to the Home Office. It has not been disclosed to me whether these matters relate to the crime used against me by the above court. Mr Kemp has also informed me that other matters relative to what I have reported to him have been placed before the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Office. Again it has not been disclosed to me what matters have been referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
As a pre-condition for being allowed to join the European Community Britain had to agree to abide by the terms set out under the European Human Rights Convention. Article 6.
Paragraph 1, of the Human Rights Convention states the following:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
I know of no such independent tribunal in existence in Britain in matters dealing with judicial and police crime, therefore I consider that Britain is in breach of the European Human Rights Convention by failing to set up such independent and impartial tribunals.
I take this opportunity to lay a claim for damages of £500 000 in ordinary and special damages against the Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court in the matter of its abuse of power, which was a very serious criminal act, which has caused considerable damages and harm to me. I think my claim against the above court is not unreasonable given the damage caused to me then and stemming from the above courts abuse of power in 1986. If the above court wishes to dispute my claim against it then I require its grounds for disputing such claim.
I also require from the above Court its acceptance and agreement to a full enquiry into my allegations made against it, by an independent and impartial tribunal as required under the European Human Rights Convention.
There still remains the question as to why, when both Northumbria Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were aware that a Sunderland County Court Security Officer had stated to Northumbria Police that nothing of note had taken place in that court at the time Miss Shirley Carr had falsely alleged that I had approached and threatened her, they were parties to my prosecution under that allegation? In the circumstances I can only consider that it was none other than a malicious prosecution.
As further background information to the above Court shortly after my trial for alleged harassment of Miss Carr she made another further false allegation of harassment against me. I elected to be tried by jury in that allegation. The Judge sitting at the Durham Crown Court in that matter told the Crown Prosecution Service that their prosecution of me was not in the public interest, was a waste of public money, and would simply be a pen pushing exercise. The Crown Prosecution Service approached barrister Mr N. Addison representing me. They told him that there was a possible deal on offer which was that if I would agree to remove certain material from my Internet web site then they in turn would consider dropping their action against me. My Internet web site was publishing facts and evidence of judicial crime being used against me. It also published facts and evidence of Miss Shirley' Carr's use of perjury during the civil proceedings between us which had been allowed and assisted by then recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding since retired. I refused that offer as I regarded it as attempted blackmail and asked that my trial take place. I firmly believed that it would be shown to the jury that Miss Shirley Carr had made another false allegation against me in furtherance to her use of perjury during the civil proceedings between us. The Crown Prosecution Service then discontinued their prosecution of me.
When I was arrested by Northumbria Police under this second false allegation by Miss Carr I was alleged to have breached the order made by the above court which prevented me from contacting Miss Carr's employer the National Contributions Agency. I had not done that. Instead I was later charged with assault on Miss Carr. I had not done that either and there was no evidence to show that. I had evidence to show that Miss Cm had entered my property and was damaging shrubs and when I tried to prevent her from doing that she seized my walking stick from me and struck me with it. The arrest of me under the allegation that I had breached the order made at the above court in the circumstances unlawful. The Chief Constable of Northumbria Mr C. Strachan has ignored my letters to him concerning that matter. At that time of my arrest police would not make known to anyone where I was being held. They did not allow me access to a solicitor. They did not allow me access to a doctor. I have some serious illnesses and after around some two hours or more of detention I was in a state of collapse. Only then did the custody sergeant telephone for a doctor who on hearing my symptoms and medical treatment instructed police to take me immediately to hospital. I was then taken by the two police officers who had unlawfully arrested me and then effectively dumped outside of the Sunderland Royal Hospital Casualty Wing where it was confirmed that I was seriously ill. I suffered a further injury at the hospital when complications arose in inserting a tube into one of my arteries.
During the civil proceeding between Miss Shirley Carr and I, where I was the Plaintiff in two out of the three actions, solicitor Alison Stott of Durham City had been attending the Durham County' Court with Miss Carr for a period of around one and a half years. During that time she had accepted work from the courts. Part of that work was in the preparation of wording of a joint agreement between Miss Carr and I. The Court was presided over by District Judge Cuthbertson. After he had delegated the latter work to solicitor Alison Stott he adjourned proceedings. Solicitor Alison Stott returned to District Judge Cuthbertson later that day whereupon he granted a far reaching injunction in the favour of Miss Carr. The Durham County' Court had never informed me of the day or time those adjourned proceedings were to recommence so I was not present at the time the injunction was granted. I could not accept the lawful validity of the circumstances under which that injunction had been granted. Miss Shirley Carr and what she described as her resident partner, then carried out acts clearly meant to have me breach the injunction thus obtained. The injunction granted against me was a deterrent, and in fact prevented me from taking further evidence for use in my court actions against Miss Carr. She had falsely reported to the local health authority that our two dogs barked incessantly. No dog can bark incessantly and our dogs only barked when circumstances warranted it.
In the summer of 1996 I sat with our two dogs in the rear garden of our home. One of our dogs started to bark. That happened several times until I found the cause of it. When I looked over the adjoining fence between Miss Carr's property and our own, I found her with something in her hand scratching on the fence which was making our dog bark and in her other hand was a microphone with which she was clearly recording our dog barking. Evidence shows that she had indeed been tape recording our dog barking at the time she was scratching on the fence. I did call Miss Carr several names in anger at seeing that. Part of the injunction District Judge Cuthbertson had granted in Miss Carr's favour was that I was not allowed to speak to her. Previous to that incident Miss Carr had made several attempts to have me breach that injunction so unjustly obtained by pulling faces at me and looking into the windows of our home.
On one occasion she had tape recorded a conversation between my wife and I while we sat in our kitchen. Evidence remains available to show that act. She had clearly placed a microphone next to an open window in our home to enable her to tape record that conversation. On another occasion she had came to the front door of our home with a tape recorder concealed on her person. During the conversation between us which followed, she stated that if we were tape recording that conversation it would be a breach of her privacy when in fact she was doing just that. There remains indisputable evidence that she did that. Subsequent to the incident with our dogs I was found guilty of breaching the injunction so unjustly granted by District Judge Cuthbertson. I was sentenced to three months imprisonment at Durham. Prison authorities said that as I was a civil prisoner I would have to serve the full sentence without any good remission being applicable. In protest at the injustice I had received, I refused all food and drink. Three days later I was taken to Dryburn Hospital at Durham City when I was found in a collapsed state by a prison officer. I was told that I had suffered a stroke. Shortly afterwards I was released from prison on appeal to the London High Court. During that time of imprisonment I was abused by a prison officer by the Christian name of Peter. I was informed by another prison officer that Peter was a former Freemason Grand Master and that it was not in my interests to protest at his abuse of me. That same prison office who had offered that advice became subject of abuse from Peter when he wished me luck with my appeal against imprisonment.
Solicitor Alison Stott of Durham had accepted the work from the Durham County Court of preparing was is termed the judges bundles ready for trial for use in the civil proceedings between us. She then secretly passed on that work for Miss Shirley Carr to carry out. Miss Carr then excluded documents from the bundles which included her application and subsequent refusal by order of the Durham County Court for consolidation of the three civil actions between us. Then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding falsely alleged that the three actions had been subject of consolidation and tried them as a single action. Then there followed a series of actions which were clearly meant to further pervert the course of justice. Some of those actions along with evidence of them were published on my Internet web site for and in the general public interest. I understand that several police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service were monitoring it.
Some one and a half years on from solicitor Alison Stott having attended at the Durham County Court with Miss Carr and having accepted important work from that court which I detail herein, she afterwards declared to the Newcastle County Court in January of 1996 presided over by then recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, that she was not acting for Miss Carr but was only assisting her. That declaration is detailed in affidavits. Others were present during that declaration, one of whom was barrister Michelle Temple who expressed amazement at it. As an assistant to Miss Carr, solicitor Stott had no lawful right to accept any work from the court and certainly no right to secretly pass it on for Miss Carr to carry out so that she could then in turn exclude important documents from the judges bundles. A solicitor is an officer of the court and Alison Stott would have been aware that as Miss Carr's assistant she had no lawful right to accept any work from the court. Solicitor Alison Stott was also aware that recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had unlawfully tried the three actions between Miss Carr and I as a single action instead of one after the other as contained in the order made at the Durham County Court on 1st June 1994 preventing the cases being tried as a single action. The recorders act rendered my case notes useless. As an officer of the court she also failed to inform the Newcastle County Court of the existence of the order made at the Durham County Court on 1st June 1994 refusing such alleged consolidation of the actions.
I was refused leave to appeal recorder John Fryer-Spedding's judgement by Lord Justices Auld and Pill. Though they went to some lengths to say that what had been carried out against me would not have been due to Masonic influence or involvement, both refused to declare any membership of Freemasonry in order that I could be satisfied that they had been impartial to my application for leave to appeal. They also refused me leave to appeal the matter to the House of Lords which is the highest court in the land.
Under the latter circumstances, Miss Carr, assisted by solicitor Alison Stott, then applied for my bankruptcy to the Durham County' Court when I did not pay the £15 800 costs awarded against me by recorder John Fryer-Spedding. By recorder John H Fryer-Spedding having falsely alleged that the civil cases between Miss Carr and I had been subject of consolidation, solicitor Stott was aware that was untrue and therefore an act of fraud used by the recorder. Instead of making that fact known to the court or relevant authority, she then became party to my bankruptcy by acting for Miss Carr in it, Durham Constabulary are aware of these latter facts, but like Northumbria Police have failed in their public duty to act on it. My alleged bankruptcy was published on the front page of the Sunderland Echo newspaper along with my photograph. The newspaper stated that as a bankrupt I was no longer allowed to serve as a Hetton-le-Hole Town Council. My father was extremely upset at the publication and collapsed and died only hours after that.
In November of 1997 I broadcast on local radio my concerns regarding the power and influence of Freemasonry within the police and judiciary. The following morning a man called at our home by the name of Mr Frank Last, then residing at Sherburn Village, County Durham. He warned me, with my wife present that I could not beat Freemasonry and that unless I gave up trying our home could be burned down. He gave as an example of what might happen to our home the case of a man named as Mr John Coates who he said owned a deep freezer centre at South Shields Tyne-Wear, who was I understand was also concerned about Masonic influence within authority. Mr Last said that as Mr Coates would not, like myself, give up his actions regarding Freemasonry, his deep freezer centre at South Shields had been burned down. In January of 1998 my wife and I heard evidence that a deep freezer centre at South Shields had been burned down. She was concerned that a similar action might be carried out against our home while we slept and she wanted me to agree to sell our property and effectively try to run from the situation we were in, I could not agree to do that and shortly afterwards my wife left our home. In June of 1998 she commenced divorce proceedings against me at the Harrogate County' Court thus ending our thirty year marriage. My wife had fabricated her reasons contained in her Petition for Divorce. In the circumstances that she too had been under severe stress at the injustice etc, we had both in fact been suffering, In her defence, I can partly understand why she may have fabricated her reasons for divorcing me. District Judge Grills sitting at that court did not allow me to put my case against that Petition. In the circumstances he had breached his judicial oath of fairness made to the Crown which is an act of treason. That too is being ignored by police and other authorities. The Harrogate County Court have confirmed to me that my letter to them regarding the matter of District Judge Grills has been simply placed on their files. I reported to Northumbria Police the possible threat to burn down our home. They took no interest in it. Before that incident, a man had made threats that I, along with my wife and daughters were to be stabbed. He repeated that threat to a Northumbria Police officer who took no action on it other than to warn the man that if he attempted to carry out his threat then he would act on that. It was from that time that we accepted that we were not to be protected by Northumbria Police for crime of which we were subject.
As a further example of the crime used against me by then recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding he was aware that Miss Carr had no working drains on the rear of her property. In fact it appears that she purchased her property for a reduced price because of that fact. He was also aware that the drains on our property could not cope with the additional drainage from Miss Carr's property. He ordered that Miss Carr be allowed to drain the rear of her property onto ours knowing that fact and the addition fact that both respective properties were built well below natural ground level and that ours is at the lower level of the two. There was no lawful reason to allow the recorder to make such a ruling. The recorder was shown indisputable video film evidence that Miss Carr had caused her rear roof guttering to be sloped in the direction of our property and that she had also caused a hole to be made under our wall dividing the rear of our properties to allow drainage from her rear yard to flow into ours. The fact that the recorder also made false allegations regarding that evidence is proved by his own approved transcript of judgement.
On two occasions over the past three years rain water has flooded under the floor of my home as a result of the acts to pervert the course of justice by John H Fryer-Spedding and the acts to back up that judgement by others. I am disabled and cannot any longer bail out water from the rear of my property in an attempt to stop this from happening. Former recorder John H Fryer my rights. That is also confirmed and proved as fact by his approved transcript of judgement. No judge can lawfully deprive anyone of his or her rights but this is the situation being ignored in my case. The recorder also falsely claimed that as our right of way across the rear garden of Miss Carr's garden had not been reserved in the conveyance of her property it therefore came to an end. In fact as a judge with alleged experience in property matters, i.e. with Chancery experience, he would almost certainly have known that all rights existing at the time of the conveyance of property are deemed under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to be conveyed with the property. The recorders false allegation is again confirmed by his own approved transcript of judgement.
Several years ago, I was a member of Hetton-le-Hole Town Council. The matter of proposed housing at Easington Lane, Tyne-Wear, came under discussion by that Council. Part of the land covered in the proposals was owned by Councillor James Blackburn, a member of the Freemasons. Three other members of his family his mother Councillor Joyce Blackburn, his father Samuel Blackburn and his Brother in law Mr C J Simpson another member of the Freemasons, failed to declare an interest in the housing proposals. Instead, councillors Joyce Blackburn and Councillor C J Simpson spoke in favour of those housing proposals. When I objected to that and to the failure of those councillors to declare an interest and not take part in the discussion, I was prevented from leaving the Council Chambers by Councillors James, Joyce and Samuel Blackburn. I was then held and assaulted by the three of them. That was in full view of around some other seventeen Town Councillors. I reported the matter to Northumbria Police despite requests by some council members not to do that. Superintendent Williams of Northumbria Police was appointed to investigate that matter. Instead he told me that as he did not think those other councillors present during that assault on me and indeed what is now known to have been an act of false imprisonment of me, would say what they had seen of the assault on me he had decided to take no action on the matter. I would have expected that the other councillors would have been required to tell the truth about what they had witnessed but its clear that Superintendent William's was implying that they would not do that and used it as a way out of taking action on what was a very serious matter. These are the sort of actions I now accept are carried out on a regular basis by police forces that are headed by Chief Constables who are members of the Freemasons.
Shortly after that incident the matter of the use of a local quarry was raised in the Hetton-le-Hole Council Chambers by Councillor Mrs Florence Anderson. I agreed with her concerns and the fact that I too had received complaints about the use of the quarry. The quarry owner called at my home and assaulted me by throwing me headlong down some steps. I spent some time in hospital as a result of that assault. The quarry owner had warned me to be silent on the matter of the use of his quarry which I had refused to do. He remained at the scene after my wife called police. Months later I enquired of Northumbria Police as to what action they' were taking on that matter. They confirmed that they had not even questioned the quarry owner about his assault on me. Shortly after that a Northumbria Police officer called at our home and said they were taking no action on that matter but said he did not know the reason for that decision. As he left he asked me if I intended to continue being a Hetton-le-Hole Town Councillor.
Sitting at the Durham County Court in November of 1992 Deputy District Judge Baird heard my appeal from the judgement of District Judge Scott-Phillips. It is against the law for a Deputy District Judge to hear any such appeal from a District Judge and there can be little doubt that at the time he heard that appeal and then refused it he was well aware it was unlawful for him to hear it, Evidence shows that the Durham County Court did attempt to cover up those unlawful proceedings. Shortly afterwards Deputy District Judge Baird sat in the matter of the civil litigation between Miss Carr and I. He ignored substantial evidence of my and my fathers title to land I provided to him, He ruled in the favour of Miss Carr who could provide no evidence of her allegation that she owned the land under dispute. He was not in the circumstances impartial to those proceedings before him as is required under the European Human Rights Convention. I had previously exposed his unlawful act of hearing an appeal from the higher court and it was not likely in those circumstances that he would err on my side. His having carried out his previous unlawful act I have detailed above, I believe that he should have been dismissed from the court and that official action should have been carried out against him. Instead he was allowed to cause me further harm, As an additional unlawful act, in the matter of the first hearing of the civil actions between Miss Carr and I, Deputy District Judge Baird refused my wife's entry into his chambers in order to assist me as I am disabled. But he allowed two advocates to enter his chambers to represent Miss Carr. One was a Mr Kevin Kerrigan and the other a Professor Kenny both employed at the University of Northumbria. Though it was clear that Mr Kerrigan was representing Miss Carr at that hearing, Deputy District Judge Baird asked for the opinion of Professor Kenny in the matter subject of that hearing. Professor Kenny had previously' visited Miss Carr at her home. That further act by Deputy District Judge Baird was also in the circumstances highly improper. His act of unlawfully hearing my appeal from the ruling of a higher court should have been acted upon by the relevant authorities including Durham Constabulary who are aware of the facts surrounding it. They have failed to do that. They have also falsely alleged to me that when a judge lies it is a judicial decision and is therefore protected. In fact judicial crime which includes the use of lies and fraud is not protected and only the way a judge arrives at his judgement is protected. Using fraud, lies, false instruments etc., as a means to fabricate reasons for judgement are not protected which is contrary to what Durham Constabulary have alleged.
The above does not by any means form the full account of police, judicial and other crime used against me. Most of that crime has been carried out since I contributed to the House of Commons Home affairs Select Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. I have no doubts whatsoever that these crimes were a form of punishment for my having providing Lord Nolan with substantial amounts of material for use in the aforesaid enquiry. My having done that was common knowledge. Justice and protection from crime has since been denied to me. It is in the public interest that a full inquiry be carried out into the facts contained within this document and that those responsible for it should be brought to trial.
I have twice asked Mr Fraser Kemp MP for a government enquiry into what has been carried out against me. I have also made him aware of the allegations that I make in this document. I await his reply' to my latest letter setting out my reasons for my not accepting the jurisdiction of the Houghon-le-Spring Magistrates Court some of which I state herein. No one in any alleged democracy should have to suffer the way that I have been made to suffer by none other than a corrupt justice system and equally corrupt police who are protecting it.
Several weeks ago my doctor told me that he believed that I was close to cardiac arrest and sent me immediately to hospital. I have got over that. But what I regard as Masonic Mafia operations being used against me by reason that justice has been denied to me once I commenced to publicised my concerns and facts regarding what I consider to be Masonic corruption allowed and assisted further by judicial and police corruption will almost certainly continue to be used against me. Recently I have again been warned by staff at Sunderland Royal Hospital that I must change my' lifestyle or risk what it seems are the inevitable consequences of failing to do that. If my conscience did not rule me then I might run away from the gross evil to which I am subject some of which I have detailed herein and thereafter change my lifestyle. I cannot do that and therefore have to accept what might be the outcome. I consider it better to expose crimes against humanity and acts of tyranny rather than become part of it by accepting the fact that it exists and do nothing about it. If the contents of this document. which are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, do invoke the wrath of the above Court as had been stated by solicitor Mr A. N. Jackson then so be it. Until the facts I have stated herein are fully investigated by an independent and impartial tribunal as required under the European Human Rights Convention my conscience will not allow me to accept the jurisdiction of the above court.
I have been subject of death threats and attacks on my home. I cannot any longer rely on police to protect me from these crimes or indeed any and in these circumstances I copy this document to others in my own interest and in the general public interest.
I sign this document with again my acknowledgement that if I have placed anything within it which I know to be wilfully untrue I render myself liable to prosecution.
Signed
Maurice Kellett
Dated 12th December 2001.
Copies to Member of Parliament Mr Fraser Kemp and the media.
