-Caveat Lector-
from alt.conspiracy
-----
As always, Caveat Lector.
Om
K
-----
<A HREF="aol://5863:126/alt.conspiracy:539564">A DIARY OF PERVERSION PART 1
</A>
-----
Subject: A DIARY OF PERVERSION PART 1
From: William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 July 1999 05:50 AM EDT
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A DIARY OF PERVERSION PART ONE
My name is Maurice Kellett of 16A The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole, Tyne-Wear,
DH5 0HT, England. Telephone (44) 0191 5264555.
The statements that I make in this diary are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
FOREWORD.
Thirteen years ago I was subject of a battering and immediately
afterwards was struck by a car that was deliberately driven at me. The
matter went before Houghton-le-Spring Magistrates Court situated in the
County of Tyne and Wear. Proceedings there were unlawful. The magistrate
who sat was not qualified to act alone. Though another magistrate also
sat on the bench at that time, later he said that he had stood down
because he was well acquainted with both myself and the man who had
battered me. This other magistrate was a frequent visitor to Hetton-le-
Hole Masonic Hall and is therefore presumed to be a member of the
Freemasons. A police Inspector Luke who was to investigate my
complaints, which included the conduct of some policemen, was also a
Freemason. I will later publish in greater detail facts regarding these
matters. It was as a direct result of these matters that I took the
decision to investigate the extent of Masonic membership within both the
police and legal profession and later, also the extent of Freemasonry
membership within local government. In May of 1996 I was thanked on
behalf of the Rt. Hon. Lord Nolan for a dossier that I sent to him. I
was informed by letter that the dossier was to be used by the House of
Commons Standards in Public Life Committee Enquiry into Freemasonry
within the Police and Judiciary. I start this diary with more recent
events. Later, I will then publish events starting from thirteen years
ago.
----------------------------------------------------------
I was a litigant in person for most of the time over four years
commencing March 1994. There were three separate actions at issue. They
concerned damage to our property, drainage onto our property, and a land
ownership dispute. On June 1st 1994 an order was made in the Durham
County Court by District Judge Scott-Phillips refusing my opponents
application ( Miss Shirley Carr) for consolidation of the three cases
under her case number of NE401650 where I was accused of trespass. I
was the Plaintiff in the other two cases under numbers DH400950 and
DH400898. The cases commenced in March of 1994. I had brief but very
damaging legal representation by Nancy Bone Solicitors of Durham City.
That firm has now been closed down following the intervention of the
Office of the Supervision of Solicitors. Nancy Bone was later struck
from the role of solicitors. That firm withheld my files by lien until
more than a year after the cases were heard before Recorder John H.
Fryer-Spedding at the Newcastle County Court commencing October 21 1996.
Nancy Bone Solicitors applied in 1994 for legal aid on my behalf for
assistance to obtain an injunction to prevent drainage coming from my
neighbours property (Case No. DH400950) . The Northern Area Legal Aid
Board ( Eagle Star House, Fenkle Street, Newcastle) refused that
application. Their refusal was on the grounds that there was already an
injunction in place to prevent the drainage from taking place and that
insufficient information had been given in the application. On appeal,
I appeared in person before the Legal Aid Board. I made it clear that
them that there was no injunction in place and that legal aid was
required for assistance in obtaining that injunction. The Legal Aid
Board refused the appeal. Their refusal was on the same grounds as per
the original application. I was able to obtain a copy of the original
application made by Nancy Bone Solicitors to the Legal Aid Board. That
application made it very clear that legal aid was being applied for to
assist in obtaining an injunction to prevent drainage onto our property.
In early February of 1996 I again obtained legal representation.
Jacksons Solicitors of Darlington, Co. Durham were the new firm of
solicitors representing me. Legal aid was granted for assistance with
all three actions. Counsel Michelle Temple was appointed to act on my
behalf. My solicitor was Mrs. P. Tench. then of Jacksons Solicitors.
For a period of around two years before January 19 1996, my opponent
attended the Durham County Court with solicitor Alison Stott, of Alison
Stott Solicitors, of Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham City.
During that time District judges Scott-Phillips and Cuthbertson had
given work to Alison Stott to carry out. This work had included the
preparation of a draft of undertakings agreed in general principle
between my opponent and I. That situation eventually ended with my
imprisonment and subsequent stroke at Durham on allegations of contempt
of court. District judge Scott-Phillips had given the work of the
preparation of the judge's bundle to solicitor Alison Stott. On January
19 1996, Alison Stott declared to the Newcastle County Court that up
until that time she had not been acting for my opponent Miss Shirley
Carr, but had only been assisting her. She said that Miss Carr seemed to
have a good grasp of the situation. In attendance at the court when
Alison Stott made that declaration were my wife, Counsel Michelle
Temple, Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding and Miss Shirley Carr. The
Recorders sharp reply to Alison Stott was, " You are either acting for
Miss Carr or you are not? To which she replied, "Well I am now sir". The
proceedings of January 19 1996 are subject of affidavits sworn in
connection with the declaration that had been made by solicitor Alison
Stott.
After the preparation of the judges bundle, thought at first to have
been carried out by Alison Stott, documents were found to be missing
from the bundle that was supplied to me. I contacted Alison Stott who
did not immediately tell me that she had passed on the work of the
preparation of the judge's bundle to my opponent Miss Shirley Carr. It
was only after staff at the Durham County Court had contacted Alison
Stott she agreed she had passed on that work for my opponent Miss
Shirley Carr to carry out.
Six weeks before the hearing of the cases before Recorder John H. Fryer-
Spedding the Northern Area Legal Aid Board withdrew legal aid from me.
The grounds that they gave was that the opinion of Counsel Michelle
Temple was not favourable to my two cases and the one in which I was the
defendant (Case NE401650). Mrs Tench did not hold that view and wrote a
very long letter of protest to the Legal Aid Board. She provided me with
a copy of that letter. The Board listed my appeal against their decision
to be heard some weeks after the cases were to be tried. It was clear
that there would be no further adjournment of the cases so the appeal
was of no use. I am in receipt of the written opinion of Counsel
Michelle Temple. There can be little doubt that Counsels opinion was
very favourable to both my cases and defence. In due course I will
publish the opinion of Michelle Temple in regard to the cases. I asked
Jacksons Solicitors for my files to enable me to continue to act alone.
They told me that they required the files for costing purposes and
therefore I could not be provided with them. Mrs Tench did provide me
with some copies from my files, but not the full content of them.
On 21 October 1996 I appeared at the Newcastle County Court before
Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding for the hearing of the cases. There had
been a long delay to enable the Durham County Court to find a judge with
Chancery experience. All of my files appertaining to the first six
months of litigation were still being withheld by Nancy Bone Solicitors.
The full content of all files after that period were held by Jackson's
Solicitors. Miss Carr my opponent, a National Insurance Inspector, was
represented by Counsel Mr Richard Merritt. There had been an adjournment
of those proceedings to allow Miss Carr to employ Counsel of her choice.
The only member of the public present in the courtroom was my sister.
Recorder Fryer-Spedding enquired as to her identity. Early on in
proceedings I became aware that the cases were being conducted as though
there was an order of consolidation of the cases in force. I told the
Recorder that it was my understanding that the cases were to be heard
separately. I had prepared my case notes on the understanding of the
June 1 1994 order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips refusing
consolidation of the cases. He replied that he thought he would prefer
it that way anyway. Despite his statement, Recorder Fryer-Spedding
continued to try the cases as a consolidated action. My case notes and
preparation became of little use due to the actions then being tried as
if consolidated.
During my cross examination of my opponent Miss Carr, I highlighted that
a statement she had earlier made was contrary to another statement which
she had just then made. The Recorder warned me not to do that as I would
not gain by it. I was astonished by his statement as the purpose of
cross examination is to attempt to prune the lies from the truth. Miss
Carr had committed perjury by swearing some statements in her affidavits
that were shown to be untrue and that it was clear at the time she swore
them she must have known them to be untrue. The Recorder failed to take
action as his duty required of him when perjury is shown to have been
used.
While I was cross examining Mr Smales, a surveyor employed by Miss Carr,
he continued to fail to give an answer to a material question which I
put to him. Eventually the Recorder went into conversation with Mr
Smales about the length of ladders which surveyors are allowed to carry.
I had not raised that question or anything connected with it and the
Recorder's conversation allowed Mr Smales to avoid answering the
question which I had put to him. During the three and a half days before
the Recorder other things occurred which I considered were improper
conduct by him.
Miss Carr had made another application for my committal to prison on
further allegations that I had breached an injunction order granted at
the Durham County Court granted by District Judge Cuthbertson on October
17 1995. It was on this occasion that solicitor Alison Stott had also
attended the court with Miss Shirley Carr. Proceedings were adjourned on
October 17 to allow Alison Stott to prepare a draft of joint
undertakings. District Judge Cuthbertson had made it clear that he had
little time that day. His first words to Alison Stott were " You don't
expect me to grant this today do you? to which she replied "Yes I do
sir". The hearing had been listed to be heard before another judge who
had failed to arrive at the courthouse. It was clear that Mr
Cuthbertson's workload had been increased by reason of that. When Mr
Cuthbertson adjourned the proceedings he made no mention whatsoever of
when the hearing was to recommence. My wife and I returned home in the
clear belief that the hearing would recommence on another day and that
we would be duly notified of such date. Two days later I received an
injunction order granted in my absence by Mr Cuthbertson dated 17
October 1995. That order was very effectively to prevent me from taking
further evidence for use in the cases. I appealed against the injunction
order and the appeal was heard before Mr Cuthbertson. He refused it.
Later when I raised with the court the matter of my appeal being heard
before the judge from whom the order was being appealed from, I was
informed by letter that it had happened because I had used the wrong
form on which to lodge the appeal. The form that had been used was the
same which was provided to my wife when she went to the court to request
a form on which to lodge that appeal.
On October 24 1996 Recorder Fryer-Spedding said that he would not hear
the new application for my imprisonment under allegations that I had
breached the October 17 1995 injunction order granted by Mr
Cuthbertson. Counsel for Miss Carr, Mr Merritt, had previously agreed
that the injunction had been granted under what he called" unusual
circumstances". Mr Fryer-Spedding said he would allow Miss Carr a
further twenty eight days in which to make a new application for my
committal to prison. He went on to say that any such new application
should be heard before him. Around two weeks after the hearing before Mr
Fryer-Spedding, he went into retirement. It was a Clerk to the Newcastle
County Court, Mr Abley, who informed me of this. After the hearing of
the cases before Mr Fryer-Spedding I had written to former Lord
Chancellor Mackay making complaint about the conduct of Recorder John
H.Fryer-Spedding. It was around that time the Recorder went into
retirement.
On October 24 1996, Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding ruled against me and
made orders which included that I pay five sixths of all costs.
I was able to obtain the approved transcript of judgement of John H.
Fryer-Spedding for use in my application for leave to appeal the
Recorders judgement in the London Court of Appeal. It commenced with the
words, " The consolidated actions before the Court". The June 1st 1994
order made by District Judge Scott-Phillips refusing consolidation of
the cases was still in force at the time of the proceedings before Mr
Fryer-Spedding. Miss Carr agreed around a year later that she had
deliberately excluded the June 1st order when, without authority, she
had prepared the judges bundle. She said that she had not considered it
as being important. It is now known that Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding
was not authorised to try the cases as a consolidated action. He was
required under 1981 County Court Rules, Order 13, rule 9. to have been
in possession of an order granting consolidation of the three actions.
Of particular interest, he had not only wrongly tried the cases as a
consolidated action, but he had tried them as a consolidated action
under my opponent Miss Carr's case number NE401650, where I was then
referred to as the defendant in all three actions. As I have previously
written, there was an order in force at the time refusing consolidation
of the cases under that case number. The Recorder had not seen any order
for consolidation of the cases, as there was none. Was it merely
coincidence that he had not only wrongly tried the cases as if
consolidated, but had wrongly tried the cases as a consolidated action
under my opponents case against me, where such consolidation under that
action had previously been refused by the Durham County Court? He had
not seen that order either because Miss Carr had deliberately excluded
it from the judge's bundle.
Here follows other statements contained in the approved transcript of
judgement of former Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding. This Transcript of
judgement was provided to Lord Justice Auld and Pill in my application
for leave to appeal the Recorders judgement which they subsequently
refused to allow.
"There is an agreed bundle which contains amongst other things the title
deeds."
There was no agreed bundle. I was not in a position to agree the bundle
due to my files having been in the possession of Nancy Bone and Jacksons
Solicitors. The bundle that Miss Carr had provided to me was also being
held by Jackson's solicitors.
"On 2nd February 1976 No. 16 was divided and Mr. and Mrs Kellett Junior
acquired by purchase from Mr and Mrs Kellett Senior the property which
became No. 16A."
Mr Fryer-Spedding had agreed that he had the title deeds to the
properties subject of the actions before him. The title deeds contained
the declaration that the properties had been divided with their own
curtilages before 1949 and that No 16A had existed even before then.
This further untrue statement by Mr Fryer-Spedding was very material. A
fact of English law is that an owner of property cannot claim to have
obtained a right over his own property other than the rights acquired by
his purchase of it. However, a tenant can acquire rights over the
landlord of the tenancy. This is common knowledge among those with only
minimal legal knowledge. No 16A had been under a tenancy since before
1947. The tenants of No. 16A had used a strip of land and the rear
garden of No 16 to access the rear of No 16A which has an extensive
garden and poultry houses on it. The rights of those tenants passed on
to Mr and Mrs Kellett Senior who were tenants in No. 16A between 1947
and 1949. In 1949 they purchased both No's 16 and 16A. In 1950 they
moved into No. 16 and then a tenant went into No. 16A. Those tenants in
No. 16A also continued to use the strip of land ( referred to as the
alleyway and subject of an ownership dispute) and the land of the rear
garden of No. 16 to access the rear of No. 16A. My parents Mr and Mrs
Kellett Senior sold to my wife and I the property No. 16A on 2nd
February 1976. I, along with my wife and family continued to use the
alleyway land and the rear garden as a means to access the rear of our
property No. 16A as had all other occupiers of No. 16A. since at least
1855 In December of 1982 my parents sold their property No. 16. to Mr
and Mrs Green.
The Recorder made the following statement which is contained in his
approved transcript of judgement.
" In a limited way also the alleyway land was apparently used for
obtaining access to the rear of No. 16 and, after the properties were
separated, of No. 16A also. This is because there is not another
convenient rear access which does not involve going through one of the
houses."
His judgement went on:
" When the sale to the Greens came to take place there appears to have
been no change in relation to the alleyway land. If Mr and Mrs Kellett
Snr. had wished to retain that land, or indeed if Mr Kellett Jnr. felt
that he had some interest in retaining it, one might have expected it
would have been fenced off"... "Mrs Kellett in her evidence said that
she told the Greens that this land did not pass with their house. That
indeed they would have discovered simply through the ordinary
conveyancing process. They would know at any rate that they were not
getting a paper title to it. The conveyance to the Greens did not
reserve any right of access across the southern part of the garden of
No. 16 for the benefit of No. 16A, so that after that sale it was not
possible for Mr Kellett Jnr. to use the alleyway land for the purpose of
obtaining access to his garden. He says nevertheless that he continued
to enter upon the alleyway land and to carry out acts there, amongst
which were the picking of blackberries and elderberries and the taking
of what he called "cuttings" from Leylandii trees, which, as I have
said, were planted earlier."
Miss Carr had falsely claimed that she had acquired the alleyway land at
the time of her purchase of No 16 from the Greens on August 26 1988.
Deputy District Judge Baird had granted Miss Carr an interim injunction
in March of 1994 preventing me from entering on the alleyway land on the
basis of that false allegation. It should be noted here that again under
English law, a conveyance of land or property must be by deed. There was
no such deed when the Greens purchased No. 16. There was no such deed
when Miss Carr had purchased No 16. Miss Carr had been unable to produce
any evidence of a deed relative to her false allegation that when she
purchased No.16 she had also purchased the alleyway land. There was no
question either of the land having been claimed by the Greens under the
Limitation Act.
The Recorder John H. Fryer-Spedding would have been well aware of
Section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is applicable to all
conveyances of land and property within England. I wont hesitate to say
that equally Lord Justices Auld and Pill would also have been well
acquainted with that Section of law. Section 62 of the Act states:
(1) A conveyance of land shall be deemed to include and shall by virtue
of this Act operate to convey, with the land, all buildings, erections,
fixtures, commons, hedges, ditches, fences, ways, waters, watercourses,
liberties, privileges, easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever,
appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, or any part thereof,
or at the time of the conveyance, demised, occupied, or enjoyed with or
reputed or known as part of or appurtenant to the land or any part
thereof..
(2) A conveyance of land, having houses or other buildings thereon,
shall be deemed to include and shall by virtue of this Act operate to
convey, with the land, houses, or any other buildings, all outhouses,
erections, fixtures, cellars, areas, courts, courtyards, cisterns,
sewers, gutters, drains, ways, passages, lights, watercourses,
liberties, privileges, easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever,
appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, houses, or other
buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof, or, at the time
of the conveyance, demised, occupied , or enjoyed with, or reputed or
known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to, the land, houses, other
buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof.
The Recorder had agreed that at the time of the conveyance of No 16 the
alleyway and the rear garden of No. 16 had been used as access to the
rear of No. 16A. Despite that he alleged the following which I print
again which is a contradiction to Section 62 of The Law of Property Act
1925.
"The conveyance to the Greens did not reserve any right of access across
the southern part of the garden of No. 16 for the benefit of No. 16A, so
that after that sale it was not possible for Mr Kellett Jnr. to use the
alleyway land for the purpose of obtaining access to his garden. He says
nevertheless that he continued to enter upon the alleyway land and to
carry out acts there, amongst which were the picking of blackberries and
elderberries and the taking of what he called "cuttings" from Leylandii
trees, which, as I have said, were planted earlier."
Recorder Fryer-Spedding ruled that I was a trespasser on the alleyway
land which I and my father had cultivated for around twenty seven years
without any adverse claim having been made against us. He was also aware
of those facts and I will later publish statements included in his
transcript of judgement relative to this. In fact by reason of
Prescription and the Limitations Act, my father and I were the lawful
owners of the alleyway and there was no question whatsoever of either of
us being trespassers upon that land. The Recorder had also agreed that
it was I and my father who had planted the alleyway land with trees and
shrubs.
-----------------------------------------
The diary, relative to the proceedings heard before former Recorder John
H. Fryer-Spedding will continue in the next publication.
I would welcome any comments, advice etc on the facts that I am now
publishing or on the facts which I will be publishing in the following
editions of A Diary of Perversion.
I can be contacted on UK phone line (44) 0191 5264555 at most times or
by e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
