Still remains without a reply from Mr Kemp MP at the 15^th of July 2002. When the going gets tough some stick their heads in the sand and hope things will pass over? They don’t. (Still no reply received from Fraser Kemp MP on Sunday the 25^th of August 2002)

+++++++++++

Mr Fraser Kemp MP

14 Nesham Place

Houghton-le-Spring

Tyne-Wear.

My Ref: MK/LP/FK11

15th July 2002

Open Letter For and In The General Public Interest.

. It is with very serious concern that I reply to it.

"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."

Typical of the injustice system, for that is what it is being shown to be, I was refused leave to appeal the judgement of Mr John Fryer-Spedding. Also typical of it, I was refused leave to petition the House of Lords on the matter as well. Then of course we have the various authorities listed above all denying any responsibility to act on John H Fryer-Spedding's crime. It would seem that Mr Spedding felt safe enough to carry out his crimes against me when he did. It is now shown both to you and I that clearly he was aware at the time of committing his crimes he would be protected by the various authorities both you and I have approached. It must be as clear to you as it is to me that this clearly is the situation? But you would not seem to be prepared to raise this matter in the House of Commons when clearly it is your duty to do that.

Mason Chief Constables have of course, like all masons, sworn to uphold Freemasonry against all which is in direct conflict with their public duties. Yet Mr Blair's government would seem to be ignoring this fact. Several years ago it was Chris Mullin who wrote to me after the failure of his Secret Societies Declaration Bill, that the House of Commons had a Masonic Lodge for both MP's and the Press Gallery. His letter implied to me that the membership of Freemasonry within the House of Commons was substantial enough to have defeated his private members Bill. Clearly the situation remains the same. Judges are now shown by clear evidence to be refusing to declare any membership of Freemasonry even when that information is of extreme relevance to the case before them.

Yes, they can hide behind the Human Rights Act in the matter of alleged breach of privacy, but the fact is that those in public office are public people and as such it is the right of the public to know whether or not they are members of secret societies such as Freemasonry. Would it in similar circumstances be the right of criminals to withhold information from the police under the Human Rights Act right to privacy? The UK justice system is a hotbed of Freemasonry and this has not come about purely by chance. Those holding public office must be prepared to give information about any membership of secret societies when that information is of relevance. In many cases I could suggest that information is of the utmost importance for the protection of the general public. To me this is common sense, but to those who are clearly part of, or are assisting Freemasonry common sense is cast to one side for whatever purpose there is behind it.

I was a member of Hetton-le-Hole Town Council, before the criminal mob I have named to you and the police, operating within the North East Court Circuit engineered my bankruptcy that barred me from continuing in that position. You will recall back in 1997, I made you aware that following my having raised the matter in the Council Chambers of the failure of several councillors, two of whom being masons, to declare an interest in land which one of them owned. That land was under discussion for proposed housing under the City Of Sunderland Draft Unitary Development Program.

Following the above I was prevented from leaving those Council Chambers until an assault on me had taken place by three of the councillors who had failed to declare the necessary interest. Typical of Northumbria Police, in their protection of crime used against anti-masons such as my self, they also failed to act on that matter as well. It was a Superintendent Williams who told me that as he did not think that the rest of the Councillors would say what they had seen of the latter incident he had decided not to act on what was clearly a very serious matter. He went into retirement shortly afterward and it was clear he had been delegated the matter because he was due for retirement. Once retired of course he cannot be asked any questions on matters such as the imprisonment and assault on me in Hetton Council Chambers. This is known to be common procedure by police when cover ups of crime are needed. Did DS Williams really think that the Hetton-le-Hole town councillors, around some seventeen of them, who witnessed the matter of my being prevented from leaving the Council Chambers and then being assaulted, would all lie to help cover up that matter? If he did then that was a sad reflection on the characters of the Council.

The list of crime used in an attempt to silence me is vast as you clearly know Fraser. But since our first meeting in 1997 you have never at any time raised any serious concerns about it. It did play a party in the destruction of my thirty year marriage following threats to burn down our home unless I stopped publicly raising my concerns about Freemasonry within the police and judiciary. Eventually when the criminal mob operating within the North East Court Circuit engineered my bankruptcy as well, my father who was very upset at what had been done to me, collapsed and died shortly after my alleged bankruptcy along with my photograph, was published on the front page of the Sunderland Echo newspaper. It might be of interest to you that previous to that two of that newspapers reporters had spent two days with me at my home. There I detailed and showed them evidence of the crimes being used against me. The photographs that were taken of me at that time were used instead, not for my expose of crime, but were used instead for the publication of my alleged bankruptcy engineered from the proceeds of that crime. I am well motivated to bring those evil people responsible for my situation to justice Fraser. That has to be clearer to you now than ever?

I refer again to paragraph four of the facts supplied to me by UK law researcher Mr Lawrence Bothwell. In the light of those facts it is presently my lawful right to expect that all those involved both in the original crimes and those connected with failing to do their paid public duty to act on it, be arrested on at least the charge of misconduct in public office (re: Regina -v- Dytham and other case law). Anything less than this results only in allowing mob rule within the justice system which presently appears to be the situation. I have made known the facts of the judicial crimes used against me to the Prime Ministers Office, The Lord Chancellors department, and other public authorities of relevance, then it would seem that as the crime of misconduct in public office carries with it a possible prison sentence of up to seven years, I myself can lawfully carry out arrests on those concerned both with the original crime and those now party to failing in their public duty to act on it. Should I really have to do this, along with the risks involved with it, in what is alleged to be a democratic society Fraser?

However, with the interests of justice in mind, there is a problem in regard to taking such action as mentioned above. Under Article 6.1 of the European Human Rights Convention, " 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." There is not as yet any such independent and impartial tribunal established by law where corrupt judges such as those I have named can be tried. I have asked you several times in my letters where such independent and impartial tribunals can be found. You have declined to answer that question clearly because you like myself know there simply are none. This is also a very serious violation of the rights of UK citizens which is being swept under the carpet. Leading Europe, as we are now in the abuse of human rights, I suppose independent and impartial tribunals are something the Government must frown on?

As it would appear now in the circumstances of Mr Bothwell's law research, even the Lord Chancellor, head of our judiciary, Mr Derry Irvine, becomes guilty of serious crime by failing to carry out his public duty to act on it. He in turn was put into public office by his close friend, the Prime Minister who has also been informed of the serious judicial crimes used against me. Who presently can try these people? They " have knowledge of wrong acts and, having the power to correct it, do nothing are taken to have committed the wrong act themselves." Fraser, we are all subject of the law without exception. No matter what position of power a person holds, they too are accountable to the law. Anything other than this can only lead to our present situation where judges can, and do, openly commit crimes against their victims such as myself, seemingly in the full knowledge, now borne out by facts and evidence, that they will be allowed to get away with it. This is simply not on Fraser. You too must know this as well? We no longer live in the middle ages when civil war was the eventual outcome to remedy the wrongs being done to the people by those holding positions of power. Have we arrived back at that same situation now I wonder?

I have time and time again made you aware of the facts above. You seem however content only to act as postmaster for my letters and unable or unwilling to go further than this. Is this the really the role for a member of Parliament unable as you say to raise issues in the House of Commons? Several Euro MP's have made it clear to me that the above matters are for you act on. Acting Fraser, surely is not simply passing on letters to me from the various government departments all who have denied any responsibility to act on judicial crime. Whilst I have requested from you copies of your letters which you sent to these various government departments, so that I might consider the replies you received to them in a better light, you have simply ignored my request for copies of those letters.

I have previously written to you that you are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Which is it to be? There is and can be no half way point between these two.

I look forward to your reply.

Mr Maurice Kellett

16A The Lyons

Hetton-le-Hole

Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT.