The letter copied below was delivered to the office of Fraser Kemp MP on the morning of Saturday the 17th of August 2002. (Still no reply received from him on Sunday the 25th of August)

Mr Fraser Kemp MP

14 Nesham Place



My Ref: MK/LP/FK12

16th August 2002

Open Letter Published For and In The General Public Interest.

Dear Mr Kemp

It is several weeks since I wrote and delivered to you a letter dated the 15th of July 2002. It contains my reference no. MK/LP/FK11. You have failed to reply to it.

You will probably be aware at this time that I have had little choice left open to me but to go public with our correspondence over the past year or so. I have done this for and in the general interest of the public whom you are in power to serve.

I continue to notice that in my correspondence with you the questions that I have put to you all fail to go without your answer. I again ask of you the following questions. If you donít presently have the answers to my questions you are I am sure in a position to obtain them.


  1. Former recorder John Fryer lied when he said that cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 had been subject of a consolidation order and then tried them that way. Do you agree this fact or do you wish me to present you with further evidence of this crime? Do you agree that in fact there was at the time of Mr Spedding's false allegation a court order refusing such consolidation made on the 1st June 1994 at the Durham County Court?
  2. In the approved transcript of judgement of former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, of which I supplied to you a copy of it along with my replies to it, you will notice that I make a number of further allegations about acts which I consider to have been meant to further pervert the course of justice. Have you any doubts about these? Do you wish me to present you with further evidence of these facts or are you satisfied that I have told you the truth?
  3. I have made it known to you that Deputy District Judge Baird heard my appeal from District Judge Scott-Phillips sitting at the Durham County Court. Instead of action being taken against him when I exposed this illegal fact to the Durham County Court he was allowed to cause me further damage in case NE401650. I had in the circumstances been ruled against by what I consider to have been none other than a criminal. Also, in the circumstances, Deputy District Judge Baird could not have been considered by a reasonable thinking man to have been impartial and independent to the proceedings before him in the matter of case NE401650. The latter is of course a requirement under the European Human Rights Convention. Have you any problems in accepting these facts? Do you wish me to explain the matter further to you or do you accept the validity of my written and signed statements to you?
  4. Under the European Human Rights Convention Britain is required to set up independent and impartial tribunals and authorities established by law. I have asked you several times in my correspondence with you where I can find such independent and impartial authorities where my grievances against corruption within the judiciary and police on the North East Court Circuit can be heard. You have never at any time replied to those questions. Is the reason for this the fact that you are unaware of any such independent and impartial tribunals or authorities? If you are indeed aware of any of these tribunals or authorities then will you know let me know where they can be found?
  5. I have asked you for copies of your correspondence in the matter of my allegations with the Lord Chancellors Department, The Parliamentary Commissioner, The Home Office and the Attorney General. As in the above situation, you have simply failed to answer these points either. Can you give me a reason for adopting this attitude?
  6. You have written to me that you are not permitted to ask questions in the House of Commons. This does seem very strange given the fact that you as a Member of Parliament are first and foremost a representative of the people within your constituency. Can you describe to me where I can find such rule book or document which you say does not permit you to ask questions in the House of Commons?
  7. Returning to the matter of former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding and his clear acts I consider were carried out which perverted the course of justice. Do you accept that no one should accept the judgement of those who use criminal acts to arrive at their judgement?
  8. Durham Constabulary have told me that when a judge lies, it is considered by them as having been a judicial decision and is therefore protected by law. In these circumstances they have refused to investigate the judicial crime used against me. Do you accept that criminal acts carried out by judges are protected by law and that the police should not in these matters carry out an investigation or prosecute them?
  9. There is in law a ruling made by the late Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning. His ruling was that no order of any court can stand where fraud has been used to obtain it. Are you aware of this ruling and do you stand by it? Do you wish further information on this ruling? Do you accept that fraud appears to have been used in my cases? Do you wish further evidence of the fraud which I have already presented to you? Do you wish to have more evidence of perjury used against me as well?
  10. In the English dictionary the abuse of power is described as tyranny. Do you accept that when a judge lies this is in fact an abuse of his or her power and is therefore an act of tyranny?
  11. Between us over this past year or so by means of our correspondence we have concluded that there is no authority in the United Kingdom who will take responsibility for judicial crime. Do you agree this fact? If you do not agree this fact then can you say which authority there is who are held responsible to act on judicial crime?
  12. I consider the fact that you and I have been unable to find any authority in the UK who will act on judicial crime as being a very serious constitutional issue. Can you confirm again that you are not permitted to raise issues such as this in the House of Commons?
  13. Would you agree that as a Member Of Parliament you are first and foremost a representative in Parliament of the people within your constituency and as such are a public servant?
  14. If you agree that you are indeed a public servant, do you agree that first and foremost you are duty bound to raise questions in the House of Commons on matters seriously affecting the lives of your constituents?
  15. I understand that moves may be underway to take my property from me under that which evidence shows were corrupt rulings made by some of the judges mentioned above. Do you accept this possible outcome as justice to the common and reasonable thinking man?
  16. As the abuse of power has obviously been used against me to obtain the alleged

bankruptcy order made from the costs order made by former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, do you think I should concede the order even when fraud, conspiracy to defraud, perjury and other acts to pervert the course of justice were used to bring about the alleged bankruptcy order?


The answers to these questions are urgently required from you. There are more but these are the most important for now. Should the worst come to the worst, I can only hold you at least partially responsible for any attempt or moves to take my property from me unless you can suggest otherwise. The matter has been placed before the European Court of Human Rights. I enclose herewith the copy of three letters that I have received. Two are from solicitors Hay & Kilner of 30 Cloth Market, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. One is dated the 30th of July 2002 and the other is dated the 16th of August 2002. The other enclosed letter is my letter to solicitors Hay & Kilner dated the 11th of August 2002. You will see that in their letter of the 16th of August 2002 Hay & Kilner deny that they have received my letter to them of the 16th of July 2002.

It is not my intention to give way to any of the judicial and police criminal acts that I have made known to you. I cannot compel you to do what I believe is your duty in the matters that I have reported to you. However, I refer you again to the statements written by Mr Lawrence Bothwell the UK law researcher contained in a letter to you. Have you written as I had requested of you to do, a personal letter to the Lord Chancellor asking if he bears any responsibility to act on judicial crime such as that which has been used against me?

I have already suffered considerable damage and those responsible for it have a clear liability for the cost of those damages. I will never accept judicial or indeed police criminals to get away with their crime. If you wish to allow this situation then you too will have a number of questions to answer to for any more damage arising to me.

I request your urgent reply to this letter and especially the questions contained within it.

Yours sincerely

Maurice Kellett

16A The Lyons,


Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT

United Kingdom.

Go to scan pages index.

Go to home page.