Mr Fraser Kemp MP. 16A The Lyons,

14 Nesham Place Hettton-le-Hole,

Houghton-le-Spring Tyne-Wear DH5 0HT

Tyne-Wear.

July 8, 2002.

My Ref: MK/LP/FK10

OPEN LETTER IN AND FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST

Dear Fraser

I thank you for your letter of the 28^th June 2002. My reply is as follows. It is necessarily long as the history of my situation and cases are also long.

As the Prime Minister is held personally responsible for failing to establish by law any independent and impartial tribunal or authority in which I can refer my cases, which is a requirement under the European Human Rights Convention, then it is he who should now sort out the matter of the substantial crime that has been carried out against me by none other than corrupt judges and members of the legal profession. Those judges I have named to you along with evidence which had provided to you, are former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, Deputy District Judge Baird and District Judge Scott-Phillips. Their crimes are very serious and I will not and cannot allow them to evade the rule of law and justice.

Deputy District Judge Baird unlawfully heard my appeal from the judgement of District Judge Scott-Phillips in1992. After I brought to the attention of the Durham County Court the fact that the appeal hearing before him was unlawful, appropriate action should have been taken against him. Instead he was allowed to rule in the first hearing of case number NE401650 and cause me further damage and harm. Am I really expected to accept the judgement of such a criminal? At that hearing in Chambers at Newcastle County Court in 1994, he refused to allow my wife entry into to his Chambers to assist me. That was another gross breach of law given the fact that he allowed my civil opponent, Miss Shirley Carr, the use of two advocates, Mr Kevin Kerrigan and Professor Kenny both then employed at the University of Northumbria Law School. In Collier -v- Hicks 1831 2B & Ad 663 @ 669 Lord Tenderden CJ " Any person, whether he be a professional or not, may attend as a friend of either party, may take notes, may make quiet suggestions, and give advice. It was in the circumstances my lawful right to be assisted at that hearing before Deputy District Judge Baird. Had I recognised him from my previous appearance before him I would have refused to allow him to sit on the case given the fact he had previously committed very serious crime against me.

Between us over the past months we have established that there is no authority who will take responsibility to act on the matters of the judicial crimes I have reported to you or indeed any judicial crime. The evidence of my allegations against the above named judges is as you know undeniable and substantive. Some of it has been published and that has been done by me not for pleasure but because of the cover up at high level of authority regarding their crimes. Both Durham and Northumbria Police are protecting the criminal acts of these judges which is another matter which now needs to be and must be addressed. Presently there are three Chief Constables who have failed in their public duty to act on the crimes that have been reported to them. You know who these are. In the circumstances they are held to be guilty of the crime of misconduct in public office (Regina -v- Dytham) which is punishable by a prison sentence of up to seven years. They also render themselves liable to citizens arrest.

The Prime Ministers office has been fully informed about the judicial and other crimes of which I am subject in my letter of the 4^th June 2001 now published. This is significant. The right to access to justice is a constitutional right common to every civilised system of government. There is no conferred power by anyone to interfere with this right or hinder its exercise. However this is exactly what has been done to me. I swear in the name of God almighty that I will not run from these corrupt persons or those who are protecting them. I wish to make it known again to you that in the circumstances that the abuse of power in my cases, and the name for that is none other than tyranny, I again formally declare that the judgement particularly of Deputy District Judge Baird and former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding and my subsequent alleged bankruptcy derived from it to be null and void by reason of their substantial use of crime used against me which clearly perverted the course of justice. By refusing to accept such perverse justice at the hands of these as yet unconvicted criminal judges, I am aware that I render myself liable to further action by those who might wish to silence me. They have come this far Fraser, and if needs be then they will have to go all of the way to cause me yet further harm and damage. I do not fear them. Right must always prevail if justice is to have any meaning. Anything less than this means that justice is no longer credible.

As a European citizen I am protected by European Human Rights Law. By failing in his public duty to set in motion the establishment of any independent and impartial tribunals or authorities, as required under the European Human Rights Convention, The Prime Minister is in gross violation of the Convention and is therefore considered to be party to the violation of my rights under it.

Further, in Statute [1275] c28 against officers of the courts, " No Clerk of any justicer, or sheriff, take part (or maintain) in any quarrels or matters depending in the Kings Court, nor shall work any fraud, whereby common right may be delayed or disturbed. Though this be ancient law, it is just as valid now as it was in 1275. In this Statute I not only refer to the Civil Courts at Durham and Newcastle in the matter of their blatant use of crime against me, but in addition to the matter of the unlawful proceedings at Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court in 1986 which is still being protected by Northumbria Police. As I have made you aware, that force's catalogue of crime and misconduct used against me is substantial. When the Crown Prosecution Service then afterwards attempted to blackmail me into removing from my Internet web site, material which serves as some of the evidence of my allegations of corruption, this sums up just how serious the problem now is. It was compounded by very material evidence being deliberately suppressed at my trial for alleged harassment of Miss Shirley Carr, my civil law opponent, who was allowed and assisted in the use of serious material perjury by former recorder John H Fryer- Spedding. Not a single bit of action has been taken by either Durham Constabulary or Northumbria Police on these matters who are in receipt of the evidence of my allegations against Shirley Carr and the others I have named to you involved in the use of crimes against me.

I was warned several years ago by a Freemason that once a person acts to expose Freemasonry for what it really is, then the law no longer applies to that person. Fraser you now have the evidence of this fact. There is even more if you want it? My having contributed to the "Nolan" Enquiry into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary was a bad mistake on my part. It helps prove the fact that doing your public duty is not always good for your health. This is a lesson I have learned the hard way as the mass of evidence now shows. Action must be taken now against these corrupt judges and the equally corrupt police officers now protecting them for and in the general public interest. From my contact with many others, it is now very clear that the justice system has become a law unto itself where the practice of evil and corruption is the order of the day.

It should also be remembered that the justice being administered is pursuant to the Coronation Oath. The Sovereign is commonly referred as "the fountain of justice" in this regard. As Wilmot J put it in R -v- Almon [1765] " By our constitution, the King is the foundation of every species of justice, which is administered in this Kingdom. The King is de jure to distribute justice to all his subjects, and because he cannot do it himself to all persons, he delegates his power to his judges, who have the custody of the Kings oath, and sit in the seat of the King concerning his justice." The fact is Fraser under this ruling we are talking about nothing else but outright treason carried out by the judges that I have named herein and previously to you. This makes the matters I have reported to you all the more serious. Several months ago I wrote to the Queen asking if she accepted any liability when judges breach their judicial oath of fairness to all. As you may know that oath is sworn to the Queen. However, no reply to my letter was received from Buckingham Palace, instead it came from the Lord Chancellors department. The very same department who is clearly protecting judicial crime by failing in their duty to act on it. The reply simply pointed me to the appeal system. The same system which had previously refused me leave to appeal.

As an additional point of concern, and I have many as you know, I raise the matter of Lord Justice Auld. It has been clear to all reasonable minded people who know about my cases that the trial before former recorder John H Fryer-Spedding was unlawful. For the moment, setting aside his considerable acts to pervert the course of justice, he falsely alleged the three civil actions DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 had been subject of consolidation and tried them as a single action thus causing me considerable harm and damage. It was Lord Justice Auld and Pill who heard my application for leave to appeal recorder John H Fryer-Spedding's judgement. I am sure that they must have been aware that the recorder lied in the matter alone, and there were many such matters in reference to him, in stating the three above actions had been consolidated, was in itself, a blatant miscarriage of justice. It was I think Lord Justice Auld who spent some time trying to persuade me that Freemasonry was not at the bottom of the injustice that I had suffered at the hands of recorder John H Fryer-Spedding and the others I have named to you and the police. As there had never been any order for consolidation of the above cases then there were three cases subject of my application for leave to appeal. They allowed me only the same time in my application for leave to appeal as is allowed for a single case.

As you know, the truth was at the time the recorder falsely alleged the cases had been consolidated there was an order in force made on the 1^st of June 1994 at the Durham County Court by District Judge Scott Phillips refusing Miss Carr's application for consolidation of the three above cases. To refresh you, it was solicitor Alison Stott of Durham who had attended at the Durham County Court with Miss Carr for something like two years. During that time she had accepted from the Durham County Court the work of preparing the judges bundles (a legal term for case files) ready for trial. Then secretly she passed on that work for Miss Carr to Carry out. Miss Carr in turn left out documents from those bundles which included the order made at the Durham County Court on the 1^st of June 1994 refusing her application for the cases to be consolidated. The order specifically states as you know that the cases were not to be subject of consolidation. Solicitor Alison Stott had also accepted other work from the Durham County Court during the same period of time that she had been attending with Miss Carr. Part of that work ended in my being imprisoned for alleged contempt of court. Then in January of 1996 solicitor Alison Stott declared to the Newcastle County Court that during the time she had accepted the above work from the Durham County Court she had not in fact been acting for Miss Carr but had only been assisting her. In other words she had no legal standing in these circumstances to accept any work from the courts.

Clearly there is in the above matter deception at work. There is substantial evidence available to show that both solicitor Alison Stott and Counsel representing Miss Carr before recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, a Mr Richard Merritt, were fully aware that there was an order in place refusing consolidation of the three above cases. But despite knowing that both failed to make known to any of the courts this fact. Solicitors and barristers are as you may know officers of the courts. As such it was their duty to have informed the courts during and after the trial before recorder John H Fryer-Spedding that it had in the circumstances been unlawful. Advocate/Bar/Solicitor/Law Officers are under a duty not to deceive the Courts. Such duties are inherently embraced by the Bar Code and Solicitor Code of professional Conduct as recently elevated to statutory status by s27(2A) and s28(2A) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

Both solicitor Alison Stott and Consel Mr Richard Merritt continued with their silence right down to my appeal against the bankruptcy engineered for me by those judges I have named. At my appeal against that bankruptcy before Mr Peter Leaver QC in London, he said he was not interested in the evidence that I had provided which showed the trial before John H Fryer-Spedding had been illegal. In that courtroom representing Miss Carr was none other than Counsel Mr Richard Merritt. He represented Miss Carr in the matter of that appeal and of course was aware that the trial before John H Fryer-Spedding had been unlawful but still kept his silence. It was the costs awarded against me by the perverse judgement of recorder John H Fryer-Spedding which was the cause of my alleged bankruptcy. Those proceedings before Mr Leaver QC were recorded for evidence purposes.

Miss Carr was the applicant for my bankruptcy which took place at the Durham County Court in 1999. The application was made by Miss Carr on the basis of none payment of costs that were awarded against me by the perverse judgement of recorder John H Fryer-Spedding. It was solicitor Alison Stott who acted for Miss Carr in that application for my bankruptcy. Again, she was fully aware at that time the trial before recorder John H Fryer-Spedding had taken place in unlawful circumstances. She was aware of that by reason of the recorders lie that the three cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 had been subject of consolidation when in fact the opposite situation had been true. She again failed to make known to the bankruptcy court, as was her duty as an officer of the court, to make the latter fact known to it. She, in the circumstances, continued and indeed compounded her original act of deception. There is little doubt, and there is a mass of evidence that will show, that solicitor Alison Stott and in similar circumstances Miss Shirley Carr, are still being protected by Durham Constabulary and the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. Northumbria Police too are playing their part in this. I have more than a little reason Fraser to publicise the fact, as I am doing, that the justice system is, as is shown in my case alone, to be nothing but a hotbed of organised crime and evil. My contact with others tells me that there are many such cases of organised crime and evil which is being protected by high level authority. I can tell you that the bubble may be about to burst at any time.

Returning to the matter of Lords Justices Auld and Pill, it was they who refused my application for leave to appeal the perverse judgement of recorder John H Fryer Spedding. As the matter of Freemasonry had entered into proceedings before their Lords Justices, I later wrote asking them if they would declare any membership of Freemasonry given the fact that judges need to be impartial to the proceedings before them. Both declined to give that information. They had therefore deprived me of what I consider to have been my right to be given information to enable me to decide whether their court had been impartial to the proceedings before it. Additionally Lords Justices Auld and Pill refused my application for leave to Petition the House of Lords in the matter of my case. It is with some concern now that I understand Lord Justice Auld is active in reforming the legal system.

Several months ago the Law Society announced that Britain was on the verge of becoming a police state. When police officers protect judicial crimes as the evidence in my cases alone show that they are, then we have entered into a very dangerous phase of our history. It is also worthy of mention that MP Mr Austin Mitchel said the self regulation of solicitors was failing consumers. He went on to say, "In law, the practice of the mafia regulating the mafia has failed, is failing and needs to be abolished." He said the Lord Chancellors department had taken on the role of protecting vested interests and was in collusion with the Law Society. Mr George Stephenson MP said of the Law Society. "Self regulation may have its place, but the priority for this organisation is the interests of its members and not the public." He urged the Government to set up a completely independent body to investigate complaints about solicitors. That has gone unheeded and Britain now leads Europe in the abuse of Human Rights having overtaken the previous leader Turkey.

In the case of the crime used against me by solicitor Alison Stott and others Durham Constabulary falsely allege that she has been subject of investigation by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. The fact is that the OSS say that they have no power to investigate criminal acts carried out by solicitors as they are police matters. After several years in trying to have the OSS act on the matter of corrupt solicitors in my cases, it was the legal services ombudsman, Ann Abraham who made me aware that my files at their offices had gone missing. The OSS had never made me aware of that and had simply failed to carry out the duties expected of them. My more recent efforts to have them OSS act on the matter of solicitor Alison Stott has met with their failure to reply to my letters. This is an all too often response received by many other victims of the legal system. However, as deception is called into issue in the matter of solicitor Alison Stott, Durham Constabulary have a duty to act on it. It should of course also be noted that County Court judges come from the ranks of solicitors and its inevitable that corrupt solicitors do also become corrupt judges.

It was disclosed on September 10 2001 that solicitors are suspects in a quarter of cases under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. Rosalind Wright, head of the SFO, had launched a blistering attack on lawyers, accusing them of them of assisting and encouraging organised crime. She went on to say that every solicitor who involves himself in money laundering brings shame on his profession. She added, It was important to remember that "the money launderer who helps a criminal to enjoy the proceeds of his crime is just as much as criminal as the criminal. John Moscow, a New York assistant Attorney General, echoed Mrs Wrights words. He said the main obstacle to penetrating large scale economic crime was no longer secrecy, but corporate secrecy with lawyers playing an instrumental role. A new profession has grown he said, of lawyers willing to help criminals. When challenged, these lawyers would cite professional privilege and refuse to co-operate with the authorities. Yesterday's corrupt lawyers are likely to be part of today's corrupt judiciary. I cite as a further example the matter of Barrister Mr Richard Merritt who acted for my civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr in cases DH400950, DH400950 and NE401650. Mr Merritt was, like solicitor Alison Stott, fully aware that there was an order in place refusing consolidation of the three latter cases. He like solicitor Alison Stott was duty bound as officers of the court, to have made that fact clear to the courts. Instead both failed to make any mention of it and had thus become part of the corruption of which I am subject. There is little point in my reporting that matter to the Bar Council. I have already experienced their warped sense of justice in another matter regarding the suppression of material evidence in the matter of Miss Carr's false allegations of my harassment of her.

As further evidence of what amounts to organised legal and judicial crime, Northumbria police were aware that I had not approached and threatened harassment of Miss Shirley Carr at the Sunderland County Court of which I was charged and found guilty. Instead they, along with the Crown Prosecution Service, collaborated in the cover up of the statement made by a security officer present in the court at the time of the allegation made against me by Miss Carr. He had told Northumbria Police that nothing of note had occurred in the court on that day. Why then, when both Northumbria Police and the CPS were fully aware of the statement made by the security officer, did they still proceed to prosecute me for it? Why was the letter as evidence of the security officers statement never produced in my defence or even mentioned or made known to me? Why did Northumbria Police state to me in the presence of a witness last year, that to deliberately suppress such material evidence as that letter was a criminal offence and then agreed to investigate it. Why then did they fail to investigate that matter as they had agreed to do?

Why did Northumbria Police agree also to investigate the illegal proceedings which took place at Houghton Magistrates Court back in 1986 after I had been battered and then struck by a car that was deliberately driven at me and then again fail to carry out that investigation as well? Why did Northumbria Police fail to act on the matter of my having been locked in the Hetton-le-Hole Council Chambers after I had raised the matter of the none declaration of interests by some Councillors in the matter of land under discussion by the Council for proposed housing part of which was owned by one of the Council members? The list goes on Fraser. I am aware that I have previously mentioned these things to you but I hope that repeating them again to you will refresh you as to just how corrupt the justice system clearly is.

Why did Northumbria Police unlawfully arrest me just over three years ago on false allegations again made by Miss Shirley Carr and then refuse me access to a solicitor, a doctor and my right to have someone informed as to where they were holding me? Only when I had trouble breathing did they dump me outside of the casualty wing of Sunderland Royal Hospital where it was agreed that I was seriously ill. The Police Complaints Authority have upheld my complaint regarding this matter but its clear that they only did that when documentary evidence proved beyond all doubt that my arrest and subsequent continued detainment was unlawful. If that documentation had not been available I have not the slightest doubt whatsoever that the PCA would not have found for me. We have again the problem of self regulation of the police by police, clearly with the implication that it would be expected they would always err on the side of fellow police officers in the matter of police crime and misconduct.

For corruption to evade justice that corruption has to reach right to the top of the tree. The Lord Chancellors Department are undoubtedly assisting the cover up of both legal and judicial corruption and thus are surely part of it. This would appear to be echoed by MP Mr Austin Mitchell. I think the reply which you received from Baroness Scotland QC of the Lord Chancellors department of the 16^th November 2001 suggests none other than the Lord Chancellors department are choosing to ignore the facts and evidence of judicial crime and indeed claims it has no responsibility to act on it. It would seem that Baroness Scotland QC Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellors Department is not aware that through the centuries from Magna Carta through to the Oath of the Justices 1344 and Oaths of the Clerks of Chancery 1344 to the Legal Aid Act 1949 (now the Access to Justice Act 1999) it has always been 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 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 wrong acts and, having the power to correct it, and then do nothing are taken to have committed the wrong act themselves. Both you and I have communicated the facts of the crimes used against me by members of the judiciary and legal profession to the Lord Chancellor. He, and the others concerned with it, are in these circumstances deemed to have been part of the crime themselves unless they can show otherwise. This I think you may agree puts a different light on their conduct of denying any liability to act.

In 1289 it was ordained that the King's Court should be OPEN TO ALL PLAINTIFF'S so that they might have, without difficulty or delay, or charge or denial, remedial writs for their complaint as well against the King and Queen any other of the people, for every injury. I wonder is Baroness Scotland QC of the Lord Chancellors department aware of this as well?

In Boaler [1915] 1 KB 21 in the Court of Appeal it was Scrutton J who ruled, "One of the valuable rights of every subject of the King is to appeal to the King in his Courts if he alleges that a civil wrong has been done to him, or if he alleges that a wrong punishable criminally has been done to him, or has been committed by another subject of the King. It is a commonly accepted fact that this right is being abused. And it is, of course, quite competent to Parliament to deprive any subject of it either absolutely or in part. You are I think in these circumstances alone, duty bound to refer my cases to Parliament given the fact that my right to appeal the ruling of the perverse and corrupt judgement of John H Fryer-Spedding was denied to me by Lords Justices Auld and Pill. The various authorities continue to protect the original crime carried out against me by failing to carry out their public duty to act on it. They are in these circumstances deemed to have been part of the original crime. This is an accepted principle of common law, if not statutory, from the time of the Magna Carta and through the ages. Arrests should now be commenced as a matter of urgency of those connected with the original crimes used against me and those who continue to protect it by failing in their duty to act on it. Anything less than this will be in furtherance and assistance to the original crimes of which I am subject. I ask these things not in favour, but as my demand under the law of this country.

Who then is going to take responsibility to act on judicial crime? On the matter of crime used by solicitors, the Law Society and the OSS cannot in any way be considered as being impartial in the matter of allegedly investigating misconduct by solicitors. It would seem that the word " impartial" is now a dirty word when it comes to the matter of both legal and judicial crime investigations. None who might presently be duly authorised to investigate such crimes can ever be said to be impartial or independent. We have the added problem where police forces such as Durham Constabulary are falsely claiming that when a judge lies it is a judicial decision and is therefore protected. That is nothing but absolute rubbish. Only the way a judge arrives at his judgement is protected but if he has used corrupt practices to do that he is not so protected. I particularly name recorder John-Fryer-Spedding and Deputy District Judge Baird as good examples of what justice is not about. Just how many recorder John Fryer-Spedding's and Deputy District Judge Baird's are there operating right now within the judicial system? They are present there is no doubt of that and what is also without doubt is the fact that both the police and the Lord Chancellor's department are part and parcel to their protection. You must also be aware of this now as a result of the replies you have received from the various authorities you have approached on my behalf.

The Lord Chancellors Department, the Home Office, The Parliamentary Commissioner and the Attorney General have all denied any responsibility to you to act on the matter of legal and judicial crimes that have been used against me. Do I in these circumstances then have to carry out my own actions in order to try to right the wrongs done to me? What about my rights to protection under the law which has been deliberately denied to me by the various authorities you have approached? Fraser you must know by now that I will never allow these matters to rest? I have come too far and suffered too much hell for too long at the hands of none other than scum to let matters rest here. I again ask you to raise these matters, which are clearly of great constitutional importance, either in Parliament or directly with the Prime Minister. To fail to do this can only mean that you become part of the problem not the solution to it. I am tempted to try to approach the Prime Minister at his constituency office if necessary to raise these matters with him rather than let them rest here. I would not resort to attempting this unless all other approaches have failed.

Yours sincerely

Mr Maurice Kellett