|
|
Mr Fraser Kemp MP. 16A The Lyons,
14 Nesham Place Hettton-le-Hole,
Houghton-le-Spring Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT
Tyne-Wear.
18th February 2002.
My ref: MK/LP/FK04
Dear Mr Kemp
I thank you for your brief letter with enclosures of 13th February 2002. I reply as follows:
I understand that you have provided both the Rt Hon. Baroness Scotland QC and the Parliamentary Ombudsman with copies of all correspondence and documents that I have sent and handed to you. Am I correct in this understanding?
Part of the documentation that I provided to you was a Statement of Truth signed by me on the 29th September 1999 setting down the facts with some evidence of the fraud used against me by former recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding. I also provided you with indisputable proof that in 1992 Deputy District Judge Baird sitting at the Durham County Court, heard my appeal from the judgement of District Judge Scott-Phillips. That was unlawful. A Deputy District Judge is not allowed to hear any appeal from the higher court presided over by a District Judge. In both of these instances fraud was used in what was none other than a perversion of the course of justice.
On September 7 2001 at my meeting with you at Hetton-le-Hole Council Offices I handed to you the following documents.
1. Letter received from Home Office dated 31st August 2001.
2. Letter from Durham Constabulary dated 5th August 2001.
I have since provided you with other facts and evidence which show beyond reasonable doubt that former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had carried out further acts which were clearly meant to pervert the course of justice. You will also surely agree that the evidence I have provided to you shows that former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had falsely alleged that the Durham and Newcastle County Court actions DH400950,DH400909 and NE401650 had been subject of consolidation whereas the evidence I have provided to you shows that on the 1st June 1994 an order referred to in 5. above, had been made by District Judge Scott-Phillips refusing an application made by my civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr for consolidation of the above three named actions? For recorder John H Fryer-Spedding to falsely allege that those actions had been subject of consolidation was his first act of fraud. In my Statement of Truth signed by me on 29th September 1999, a copy of which I have provided to you, I detail further acts of fraud used by the recorder against me If what I have placed in that Statement of Truth was deliberately untrue then action must be taken against me. Otherwise action must be taken against former recorder John Fryer-Spedding.
It is important that I am assured by you that the Rt. Hon. John Denham MP the Home Office Minister of State, the Rt.Hon Baroness Scotland QC Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellors Department and the Parliamentary Ombudsman were all supplied with the evidence that I have provided to you proving that former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had lied when he alleged that the three civil court actions DH400950,DH400898 and NE401650 had been subject of a consolidation order. All three of these authorities as you know are opting out of any responsibility to act on the judicial crimes that I have reported to you. That crime also of course involved the unlawful proceedings at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court in 1986 which took place following my having been battered and then struck by a car that was deliberately driven at me. I have made you fully aware of that matter as well and the fact that Northumbria Police are failing in their public duty to act on that crime as well. I see that Mr Denham, mentions Cumbria Police but no where in my correspondence with you has there been any mention of that police force. My complaints to you regarding their failure to protect me from crime concern Northumbria police, Durham Constabulary and North Yorkshire Police. Some two weeks before Christmas of 2001 I provided to you a copy of a Statement of Truth delivered to Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court concerning its unlawful proceedings in 1986 and why I will not accept its jurisdiction until there is a full independent enquiry into that courts unlawful proceedings described in my statement. In that statement I also included my claim for damages following those unlawful proceedings in 1986. The new Clerk to the Houghton- le- Spring Magistrates Court, Mr Rowbottom, has failed to reply to that Statement of Truth which suggests that he too, like his predecessor Mr Bavidge, intends to assist in the cover up of those unlawful proceedings. I note that you have not commented on that Statement of Truth or the fact that Northumbria Police are deliberately failing to act on that matter.
In 1992 Deputy District Judge Baird, sitting at the Durham County Court, would have been fully aware that he was not allowed by law to hear my appeal from the judgement of District Judge Scott-Phillips, i.e. the higher court. That too would have been the same situation existing with the then Clerk to the Durham County Court, Mr I Cuthbertson. Instead they attempted to cover up that crime by claiming the appeal had been heard in error. There cannot be any question that error was involved in that matter. Following my having exposed that crime, Deputy District Judge Baird was allowed to preside in the first hearing under case NE401650. He then allowed my civil opponent the use of two advocates, Professor Kenny and Mr Kevin Kerrigan both then of the University of Northumbria Law School. My wife was refused access to Deputy District Baird's Chambers even though I required her assistance because of problems I have with rheumatoid arthritis. In the circumstances of my having previously exposed the crime used by Deputy District Judge Baird sitting at the Durham County Court on 1st October 1992, he could not in the circumstances have been impartial to the proceedings before him under case NE401650 which took place in March 1994 at the Newcastle County Court. To accept the ruling of Deputy District Judge Baird who had previously carried out the criminal act I have described to you along with evidence of it, cannot in any way be accepted as justice in the commonly accepted principle of justice? Would you agree this fact?
I am convinced that it is primarily the public duty of the Lord Chancellors Department to act on the judicial crimes I have reported to you. Instead it would seem that they are protecting that crime by failing in their public duty to act on it. I am sure that the Rt. Hon. Baroness Scotland QC will agree that for recorder John Fryer-Spedding to have lied when he falsely alleged the three above cases had been subject of consolidation was an act of fraud. To try the cases as a consolidated action, thus causing me considerable problems, was in furtherance to that fraud. You are aware by my Statement of Truth signed on 29th September 1999, of which I provided a copy to you, of the other acts carried out by the recorder clearly to further pervert the course of justice. Would the Rt.Hon. Baroness Scotland QC really try to have us both believe that there is not an issue of judicial crime involved in what I am led to understand you have reported to her? I ask that you put these comments to her for her reply. The reply which you have received from her cannot in any way be accepted if the true course of justice is to run its course and my rights under the European Human Rights Convention continue to be violated. I feel sure that you too will agree this fact?
The European Human Rights Convention, of which the UK is bound by its terms, states as follows:
"Article 6.
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."
In the case of the judicial crime used against me that I have reported to you, can you tell me where I can approach an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of my rights breached as I have described to you? Would you agree that the Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary, along with his department cannot be considered as being independent and impartial as required under the above Article 6. of the European Human Rights Convention? Indeed the Lord Chancellors Department alleges by the reply you have received from the Rt. Hon. Baroness Scotland QC. dated 16th November 2001, that it has no responsibility in matters of judicial crime.
Article 13. of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
Can you tell me where such national authority exists who are independent and impartial as required under Article 6. above, in the resolution of my rights which have been violated?
Article 1. of the Protocols of the European Human Rights Convention states:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject of the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."
As you are aware, A bankruptcy order was made against me in 1999 at the Durham County Court in the matter of costs awarded against me by recorder John H Fryer-Spedding in the matter of cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 which he had unlawfully tried as a consolidated action in October 1996. My possessions were seized following that bankruptcy order. Given the fact that recorder John Fryer-Spedding had used fraud in the matter of the above cases, seizure of my possessions under the bankruptcy order is deemed to have been illegal especially given that both Northumbria Police and Durham Constabulary have refused to act on the use of that fraud.
In the matter of case NE401650 land of which I and my late father have lawful title, subject of that case has been seized from me since 1994 following the hearing before Deputy District Judge Baird, who had previously carried out the criminal act described herein. Recorder John H Fryer-Spedding used false instruments to allow the continuance of that seizure. Those false instruments are described in my Statement of Truth which I signed on the 29th September 1999, and of which I have copied to you.
My civil opponent in the above cases, Miss Shirley Carr was allowed the use of material perjury to allow her to occupy my land subject of case NE401650. I have made you aware that Northumbria and Durham Police are refusing to act on the use of that perjury. Durham Constabulary have as I have also made you aware, falsely said that when a judge lies it is a judicial decision and is therefore protected.
Under the ruling made by recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding at the Newcastle Country Court in October of 1996 in the above cases, under what were clearly unlawful proceedings, my civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr was allowed to drain the rear of her property onto mine which is below normal ground level and lower than Miss Carr's property. The recorder was shown evidence and agreed that the drains on my property could not cope with the extra drainage from Miss Carr's property. That is confirmed by his approved transcript of judgement. Despite that he made an order which allows my property tp flood. There were no easements whatsoever to allow this situation. Over the past three years flood water resulting from the above situation has drained beneath the floors of my home. As you are aware, I am disabled and cannot take any physical action to try to prevent this situation when it occurs.
The above facts amount to a further gross violation of my rights under Article 1. of the above Protocols of the European Human rights Convention. Again, can you suggest to me where I can approach an independent and impartial tribunal established by law under Article 6. of the above European Human Rights Convention in the resolution of my rights so violated as described above and in my previous correspondence with you?
Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention states:
"No one shall be subjected of torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
In the circumstances of recorder John Fryer-Spedding's ruling under the unlawful circumstances as I have described to you, by the continuance of drainage being allowed to drain from Miss Carr's property onto mine amounts to a violation of the above Article 3.. Again, can you suggest which independent and impartial tribunal there is that I can approach for the resolution of my rights under Article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention?
Under the ruling made under the unlawful circumstances I have described to you in cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650, rear access to my property and gardens is only by means of passage through my living room. As a result of the unlawful actions of recorder John H Fryer-Spedding I cannot move garden refuse other than through the living room of my home. That amounts to a violation of Article 3. of the European Human Rights Convention. Can you suggest again which independent and impartial tribunal I can refer this matter to as required under Article 6. of the Convention?
I would remind you that I have already suffered substantial damage in the matters that I have reported to you. That damage continues. I am lawfully entitled to act against those responsible for the damage caused to me. Misconduct by those holding public office remains a crime. Those in public office who deliberately protect crimes against humanity by others holding public office are also deemed to be guilty of crime.
In the circumstances described, I again ask that you call for a public enquiry by an independent and impartial tribunal as required under Article 6. of the European Human Rights Convention.
Finally, Article 1. Of the European Human Rights Convention states:
"The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention."
My rights under the above Article 3. Have also been grossly violated.
I look forward to receiving your reply to the matters and questions that I have raised herein and previously with you.
Yours sincerely
Mr Maurice Kellett.
