|
|
Mr Fraser Kemp MP.
14 Nesham Place
Houghton-le-Spring,
Tyne-Wear.
My Ref: MK/JL/FK03
24th November 2001.
Dear Mr Kemp
I thank you for your letter of 23rd November 2001 along with a copy of a letter dated 16th November 2001 that you received from The Rt Hon Baroness of Scotland of Asthal QC. My reply is as follows:
The Rt Hon. Baroness Scotland writes that my concerns regarding the police are matters for the Home Office. I have previously supplied you with a copy of a letter that I received from the Home Office dated 31st August 2001 which implies that the conduct of police is not a matter for the Home Office. Parts of that letter have I understand been included in a book which was published some three weeks ago. The contents of the letter I received from the Home Office has raised many an eye brow since I copied it to others. As you are aware, my letter to the Prime minister of 4th June 2001 was passed to the Home Office as they too believed the matters contained within it were matters for the Home Office. Being passed from one government department to another has been a common factor in the issues that I have raised with you and is one reason for those matters still having not yet been addressed and resolved by the various authorities whose public duty it is to act upon them.
There are many who have concluded that its all part of a game to frustrate attempts to obtain justice. I have no reason to disagree with them. I am informed that I have legitimate claims against all who have failed in their public duty to act upon the crime to which I am subject. The more damage that is caused to me the more those claims will rise.
The Rt. Hon Baroness is of course correct to say that the conduct of solicitors is, in the first instance a matter for their professional body, the Law Society. Mr Brian Wake the Secretary for the Law Society for the North Yorkshire and Durham area refutes that. In my approach to him on the matter of the conduct of solicitor Alison Stott he wrote that her conduct was not an area for his concern. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors have indicated that where the conduct of a solicitor concerns criminal matters rather than professional misconduct then they will not investigate that solicitor as it is a matter for police to investigate.. My previous approach to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors on the matter of the conduct of solicitors Mr Paul Graney, Mrs Nancy Bone, ( both now struck from the register of solicitors because of criminal conduct involving other clients) and Alison Stott lasted for well over four years without resolution. It was only when I complained to the Legal Services Ombudsman Ann Abraham that she informed me that my files had gone missing from the Offices of the Office For The Supervision Of Solicitors. She said that the OSS said the files had been lost during flooding but Ann Abraham said there was no evidence of that. My complaints against these solicitors was simply ignored by the OSS and it is clear from evidence that there was a clear intent by them to protect those solicitors. That evidence remains available for your inspection should you require it.
As you are aware from documents I have provided to you solicitor Alison Stott had attended at the County Courts in the matter of cases DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 for some one and a half years before declaring to the Newcastle County Court that she was not acting for my civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr but was only assisting her. During that time she had accepted the work from the Durham County Court of preparing the judges bundles and had then secretly passed on that work for Miss Carr to carry out. Under the circumstances Alison Stott had no authority to accept such work from the courts. Miss Carr then deliberately left out documents from the bundles which included the order made on the 1st June 1994, which I have provided to you refusing her application for consolidation of the three above cases. Then, recorder John H Fryer-Spedding tried the three actions as a single case and falsely claimed that the cases had been subject of consolidation. That Mr Kemp was an act of fraud. It was also in breach of Supreme Court rules and amounted to Mr Spedding's contempt for the Supreme Court rules. Included with this letter is evidence backing up my latter statements.
At considerable trouble and expense I provide to you a very substantial Statement of Truth which I signed on 29th September 1999. It details some of recorder John H Fryer-Spedding's actions and of the many who have seen the document all agree that the acts carried out against me which are detailed in it, were indeed acts which perverted the course of justice. As you will see though the document is very substantial it still does not cover all of the acts which the recorder carried out against me.
I also provide you with a copy of a letter which I received from solicitor Alison Stott dated 6th February 1995 where she conceded that the walls adjoining our property and that of our civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr are party walls. The letter was provided to Mr Spedding in evidence under "Exhibit MK302". Like almost all evidence that I provided it was simply ignored by the recorder and despite the matter of the walls having been conceded, he ruled on the matter to my extreme damage and detriment. There is though the added complexity of the fact that at the time Alison Stott wrote that letter of 6th February 1995, she was not in fact, as confirmed by her declaration to the Newcastle County Court in January of 1996 presided over by then Recorder John H Fryer-Spedding, acting for Miss Carr but was only assisting her. In the papers I provide to you is an affidavit sworn by Mrs Joyce Kellett ( Contained within my Statemet of Truth dated 29th September 29 1999) detailing the declaration made by solicitor Alison Stott of which I hereto refer. I would make you aware that to deliberately swear false information in an affidavit or to sign against false information deliberately placed in a Statement of Truth is a criminal matter. Either way the Lord Chancellors Department must act on the information provided in these documents. You will also find other documents which concern the matter of perjury sworn in a Statutory declaration signed by former solicitor Mr Paul Graney. That evidence too was provided in evidence to recorder John H Fryer-Spedding who again simply ignored it.
The Rt Hon Baroness Scotland writes that the Lord Chancellor has no power to overturn a judges decision. That is of course only true where such a decision has not been arrived at by means of fraud, acts to pervert the course of justice and false instruments as evidence shows were used by recorder John H Fryer-Spedding. Under a ruling made by the late Lord Denning, which still stands today, no decision or ruling of any court can stand where fraud has been used to obtain it. If you wish I can supply you with that ruling and the case in which it was made. The first act of fraud and contempt for Supreme Court Rules was carried out by recorder John H Fryer-Spedding when he falsely claimed that the three actions DH400950, DH400898 and NE401650 had been subject of consolidation when in fact the direct opposite was true by virtue of the order made at the Durham County Court on 1st June 1994 refusing that consolidation. By trying the cases that way the case notes that I had prepared on the basis that each case was to be tried as a separate action became useless. It was clear from the point in time that recorder John Fryer-Spedding warned me not to highlight to the court that Miss Carr was swearing contrary statements while I cross examined her, that justice was to be denied to me.
I find myself going over old ground Mr Kemp and think now its time for the Lord Chancellors Department to act on the documents that I provide here to you. There is a substantial amount more which assists in showing that John H Fryer-Spedding's acts did pervert the course of justice and that he allowed and added to the perjury used by our civil opponent Miss Shirley Carr. If you require it please let me know and I will take the time, trouble and expense to copy it to you. That evidence is in any event stored at the Durham County Court along with video film which again shows some of the recorders acts which perverted the course of justice and the fact that perjury had been used by Miss Shirley Carr and had both been allowed and assisted by then recorder John Fryer-Spedding.
I had previously stated my concern in writing to you that only matters concerning the judicial issues could be acted upon by the Lord Chancellor's Department. This is borne out by the letter you received from the Rt Hon Baroness Scotland. There are of course the issues of police misconduct to be addressed which are placed in my recent letter to you of 16th October 2001 and my letter to the Prime Minister of 4th June 2001 which I copied to you.
The Lord Chancellors Department must now address the facts stated in my Statement of Truth which I signed on 29th September 1999 and rule on them if the Lord Chancellor is not to be shown to be party to the acts carried out by recorder John Fryer-Spedding detailed in it. You had previously written to me that you had referred my case to the Lord Chancellor as the highest authority of law in the land. I think in the circumstances my case should now be fully addressed by the Lord Chancellor alone.
There are further facts and evidence to provide to you concerning the conduct of police. However, I think I have already provided sufficient material for you to act on for now. The rest will follow as soon as possible.
I am sure that you will agree that all of the matters I have detailed to you have not yet been any where near been addressed or resolved? While I am now aware the European Court of Human Rights is not an appeal court, the facts I have detailed to you along with evidence must be addressed unless the government is not to be shown to be party to what is none other than the gross abuse of my human rights which are protected under the European Human Rights Convention and the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Britain has no impartial tribunal or committee to act between the State and the public and as such is in breach of the European Human Rights Convention. I think my case alone shows that the various authorities involved in the abuse of my human rights are not only not impartial, but will assist each other in protecting crime and misconduct carried out by those holding public office within such authorities. I am aware of the existence of many more such victims nationwide.
In my recent letters to you I have made it clear that I have very substantial evidence to support the claims that I have made to you. If you doubt that my claims are true, then please contact me where any such doubt occurs and I will provide the necessary evidence to you to back up those claims.
My father might well still be alive and my marriage might well have survived had the matters I have reported to you been addressed several years ago.
Yours sincerely.
Mr Maurice Kellett.
