Petition by Tom
Minogue to the Justice 2 Committee
of the Scottish Parliament.
matter under consideration by the Justice 2 Committee:
PE306 calls for the Scottish Parliament
to oblige/request existing members of the Judiciary
to declare and register membership of organisations such as the Freemasons,
and for new members of the Judiciary to
make a similar declaration.
The Petition also calls
for a register to record such interests and that this register be
available to litigants on request.
2 Committee's Terms of Reference:
The Committee invited
the petitioner to provide further evidence of specific cases where
difficulties have arisen over the question of Sheriff/Judicial membership
of the Free-masons. The Committee
sought the petitioner’s response in writing in advance of their
meeting of 4th March at which time the Committee would consider the
issues raised by the petitioner with the Justice Minister.
The Petitioner's Response:
The petitioner wrote
to the Clerk of the Justice 2 Committee
on 6th February 03, intim-ating that he would comply with the Committee's
invitation to make timeous written sub-missions. However, the
petitioner advised the Clerk that he had instructed solicitors to
raise a complaint with the Standards Commissioner about the behaviour
of the Deputy Convener to the Justice 2 Committee,
At the last
meeting of the Justice 2 Committee that
dealt with this matter, the petitioner observed that some of the more
recently appointed members of the Committee had misunderstood the
terms of the petition in that they appeared to think that the petitioner
was in some way calling for the membership of organisations such as
the Freemasons to be forbidden to [become]
members of the Judiciary. Also there
seemed to be a view that the petitioner considered that membership
of such organisations by Judges was objectionable per se.
For the avoidance
of any doubt, the petition deals with the right of litigants
to know if the Judge/Sheriff hearing their case is a member of an
organisation such as the Free-masons, in
order that the litigant can exercise their right
by law, to determine if the tribunal that is determining their rights,
obligations, innocence or guilt is in fact compl-iant with the law
of the land, with particular reference to ECHR.
Submission on the points of law:
6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights as incorporated into
Scots law by the Human Rights Act of 1998, a litigant is entitled
as of right to a fair trial which is defined as follows:
“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
For the purposes
of Article 6(1) the existence of impartiality is to be determined
accord-ing to two tests, one subjective and one objective
(Hauschildt v Denmark (1989) 12 EHRR 266)
impartiality of judges is widely recognised as being presumed in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, and I make no submissions in
this regard. The objective test of impartiality is
not presumed and is subject to the perspective of the informed
observer or the litigant. This objective test of impartiality
is the subject of guidance by precedent in the case of: (Remli v France
(1996) 22 EHRR 253 1996-II p559) where a court defined the responsibility
it has to demonstrate its duty to define a citizens rights
at paragraph 48. It states:
the Commission, the Court considers that Article 6 para. 1 (art.
6-1) of the Convention imposes an obligation on every national court
to check whether, as constituted, it is "an impartial tribunal"
within the meaning of that provision (art. 6-1) where, as in the
instant case, this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately
appear to be manifestly devoid of merit.”
So unless the
nature of an objection on grounds of objective impartiality
is frivolous or immediately appears devoid of merit, the court must,
as is it’s obligation, check its impartiality
so that the litigant or court user is confident that the
tribunal is impartial.
would argue that he is denied a hearing by an impartial tribunal if
he is not given access to relevant facts, which in his opinion might,
in certain circumstances, be seen by an informed observer to vest
the tribunal with partiality. The petitioner would submit that
a judge’s membership of an organisation such as the Freemasons
is a relevant fact.
In simple terms,
it is the petitioners view that as a non-Mason
he is excluded from the benefits that are mutually accorded between
There is an
inbuilt constitutional obligation that Masons
adhere to, which is biased in that it demands an undefined preferment
by Masons of their brethren.
At the first
degree of Entered Apprentice, Masons don
a hood, with hangman’s noose draped round their neck, a dagger
is pressed against their bared left breast, the left trouser leg rolled
up and in this state an initiate has to swear on solemn
oath to uphold the constitution, and keep the secrets
for failure to uphold the obligations and secrets are harrowing and
are recited in detail to the initiate. Given the obligations,
secrets, oaths and penalties of Masons,
the petitioner thinks that it is not unreasonable for him to view
Masons as being less than impartial.
In the petitioners
own experience, which is set out at Example No 3, the Sheriff at Dun-fermline
certainly did not treat his concerns as being immediately and demonstrably
without merit. In fact the Sheriff heard full legal argument
over 2 days by the petitioners senior counsel before issuing her written
judgement. The Sheriff also gave a personal albeit tacit assurance
that she was not a Mason, which she stated
was over and above her obligation in the terms of her judicial
(in common with the Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine)
recognised the petitioners right to know with regard to a Judge’s
Freemasonry but felt that it was the Judge’s
duty to tell. The petitioner felt that since there was no record
of a Judge ever voluntarily declaring Freemasonry
as a potential conflict of interest he would Petition Parliament to
remedy this matter.
The law regarding
the extent to which a judge should address a concern regarding the
Court's appearance of impartiality has moved on since the petitioner's
court case, and Remli v France has defined a tribunal’s role
not only to be, and be seen to be impartial, but to reassure the subjects
of their jurisdiction if this is necessary. This was stated
which the courts must inspire in those subjects in their jurisdiction”
is not aware of any confidence that membership of the Masons
inspires in non-Masons. The Mason’s
answer to concerns from the profane is simple: Don’t tell of
your membership. The ruse of diverting the discourse that Masons
use allows the McLetchiesque answer, which is obfuscation, or, have
a third party give misleading answers. Also the inducements
for non-declaration by Masons are not inconsiderable.
A Mason who tells is liable to be
made a perjured individual and have his “tongue
torn out by the roots etc”.
argument that any judge can belong to any secret society as long as
it is legal, is outdated, and is relevant only to the eighteenth century
when the Scots people were in awe of, or fear of, the Craft. This
argument carried to its most extreme exam-ples would have Ku Klux
Klan (not a proscribed organisation) Judges sitting in judge-ment
of black litigants, or British Union of Fascist Judges sitting in
judgement on Jewish litigants, and this the apologists argue, would
might see a Judge belonging to the Masonic
Knights Templar (based on the Crusaders
with the recapture of Jerusalem for Christianity as an aim) sitting
in judgement of Islamic litigants, which in the apologists view would
be fine as long as the Judges kept their membership secret,
as is currently allowed.
would argue that the interests of Judges who are paid by the public
purse is of legitimate concern to the informed observer, and in our
modern, enlightened and rights-conscious society will come increasingly
Since in the
twenty first century it is legitimate and becoming increasingly common
for citizens to wish to define and insist on exercising their rights. Might
it not be better for Parliament to be proactive in such matters to
avoid clogging up the courts with civil rights challenges?, given
that the increasing frequency of this type of challenge being brought
by citizens exercising their rights, is self-evident. The
concerns that fuel chall-enges and the grounds for such challenges
will be provided by judges wishing to cling on to anachronistic rituals
and promises to keep secrets.
2 Committee has the opportunity to change the rules
for Judge’s declaration of interest before another Dunblane
scandal breaks bringing further damage to the already tarnished image
of Scottish Justice and forcing a reactionary change. The changes
to legislation that are rushed in as a result of some particular action
or incident are seldom effective.
fact that the Parliament has had 3 years to examine the merits or
otherwise of PE306, the petitioner urges
the Committee to consider his petition further, expediting matters
in view of recent events, and attaches 5 examples of cases where in
the petitioner's submission, the membership of Judges/Sheriffs in
organisations such as the Freemasons has
Duncan - Appellant v The Secretary of State
An appeal to the Commissioner of Social Security on a Point of Law
arising from an Industrial Tribunal:
Decision by the Social Security Commissioner, Ref: CS1/136/02.
Appeal From The Appeal Tribunal on a Question of Law.
Victor Duncan appealed an Industrial Diseases
Tribunal’s decision on three separate and distinct grounds:
- Findings of Fact;
- Bias (Subjective Impartiality);
- Bias (Objective Impartiality).
found as follows:
- The Tribunal had ignored
medical evidence (Matters of fact) and had erred in law.
- The Appellant had failed
to prove personal or subjective bias by the Tribunal against him.
- The Tribunal had not
taken measures to check its impartiality (in the objective sense)
with regard to Freemasonry and had erred
ordered a new Tribunal to consider Victor Duncan’s
case afresh and ordered that as a preliminary issue the Tribunal must
hear full legal argument on the question of the Tribunals links with
Duncan’s repeated written requests
that he be informed if anyone deciding his case had links with Freemasonry
he was simply ignored by a Tribunal and the Secretary
of State. The Commissioner found that Mr Duncan
had made reasonable requests on a matter of genuine concern to him
and was entitled to have these genuine concerns addressed by the various
tribunals that had dealt with Mr Duncan
over the years. The Commissioner stated in this regard:
the present case, it was the claimant's view that he would not receive
justice if the person deciding the case was a freemason,
this was because he was an avowed opponent of freemasonry. It
did not matter, in my opinion whether or not the claimant’s
views had been widely reported in the press, or were widely known.
He had made them known to the tribunal. He was therefore
known to the tribunal to be opposed to freemasonry. In
those circumstances, he sought the assurance which he did, &
'Bearing in mind, as the court did in Remli v France supra, “the
confidence which the courts must inspire in those subject to their
jurisdiction”, I find that the tribunals failure to address
the issue of impartiality constituted a breach of Article 6(1) of
further found the Secretary of State’s
refusal to address the question of the Tribunal’s links with
Freemasonry “most unhelpful”
and directed the Secretary of State to address
the question of the Tribunal’s links with Freemasonry
at a new Tribunal by way of written submission followed by full legal
The full Reasoned
Judgement of the appeal decision in the case of Victor
Duncan v The Secretary of State
is appended to this document and I recommend that the Committee read
it in full.
A Tribunal in terms of Section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry
(Evidence) Act 1921
Terms of Reference:
On 21 March
1996 Lord Cullen was charged by the Secretary of State
for Scotland to inquire into the circumstances and events
leading up to the shootings at Dunblane Primary School,
which resulted in the deaths of 16 Children, 1 Teacher, and the perpet-rator
A measure of
the widespread public concern regarding the influence of Freemasonry
in the above events is shared by the petitioner and is set out in
the petitioner’s research into the Dunblane Inquiry.
finds that the words Freemasonry, lies
and cover up are synonymous with the Dunblane
Inquiry carried out by Lord Cullen,
and if the Internet is searched in these terms many conspiracy theory
type stories are to be found. The petitioner sought to establish
what truth if any could be attributed to the links between Freemasonry
and the problem of a perception of a cover-up
in the Dunblane Inquiry.
sought first to establish the truth to the widespread assertion that
Lord Cullen was a Mason. The
petitioner wrote to the Grand Lodge of Scotland
and to Lord Cullen asking them both to make
statements to the Masonic membership of
William Douglas Cullen. Grand
Lodge declined to answer, as did Lord Cullen.
Secretary of Lord Cullen did though make
a statement as to his understanding that Lord Cullen
was not a Mason. The petitioner has
since written to Lord Cullen a further two
times asking him if he has ever taken the oath
of entered apprentice in Freemasonry. Lord
Cullen has yet to answer.
was struck by the secrecy surrounding the 100-year embargo
of Documents from the Inquiry. The timing of the petitioner’s
enquiries with regard to the 100-year closure
on documents coincided with a public outcry that the closure be lifted. A
Crown Office spokesperson initially stated
that the reason for the 100-year closure
was that it had been put in place to protect the identities of children
who may have been abused by Thomas Hamilton
and this type of order was normal and would not be lifted.
this, when William
W Scott brought it to the public’s
attention that he had been in correspondence with the Crown
Office since 1999 in terms that Lord Cullen
had no right at law to impose such an order, the public outcry became
unbearable and the Executive instructed the Lord Advocate
to look at ways of releasing parts of the embargoed documents. The
aim appears to be to issue documents with the names of the children
obscured, thus protecting the anonymity of the children named in police
reports, which are under closure.
was able to obtain a copy of the Index of Documents under closure
from the National Archives and it is evident
that the Crown Office and the Executive
have misled the Scottish Public as out of the 106 listed Documents
only a dozen or so appear to have the potential to contain police
information regarding the identity of any of Hamilton’s
alleged abuse victims. Since, on the face of it, the Crown
Office and the Executive has lied, the petitioners attention
was drawn to examine this, usual pattern for the Dunblane
Inquiry, and noticed files referring
The files in
question are at 105/1-2 and are described as follows:
Correspondence between Clerk to the Inquiry and William
South Queensferry, West Lothian, regarding possible affiliations
of Thomas Hamilton with Freemasonry,
and relevant extracts from Inquiry transcript, and copy letters
from Thomas Hamilton
contacted William Burns who kindly provided
the petitioner with copies of all
of his submissions to the Dunblane Inquiry.
It soon became evident that the first priority of William
Burns had been to establish if the Inquiry Chairman,
Lord Cullen is or was a Freemason. To
that end William Burns wrote to Lord
Cullen requesting that at the very outset Lord
Cullen declare his personal position regarding Freemasonry.
William Burns has had less success than
the petitioner, and did not even receive a written response from Lord
Cullen’s secretary, but instead received a telephone
call, which he noted on a copy of his letter to the effect that: the
secretary had been told by Lord Cullen that
he (Cullen) was not, and never has been
Burns correspondence was, in general, not so much centred
on Thomas Hamilton’s Masonic
membership as the Productions Index infers, but on the membership
of the Tribunal Chair and the police, and is seen to be motivated
by a desire on William Burns’ part
to ensure that every witness to the Dunblane Inquiry
was asked to declare their Masonic affiliations. William
Burns also demanded that anyone who was a Mason
be required to resign from the Inquiry in the public interest.
Burns has related to the petitioner how he helplessly
watched, horrified, as his worst fears became reality and the Inquiry
studiously avoided the underlying problem behind Thomas
Hamilton’s power to act with impunity, this being
Freemasonry. Despite writing to Lord
Cullen on more than one occasion to protest about the
apparent Masonic whitewash
that was taking place. The only responses William
Burns received were second-hand legal reasoning from
Lord Cullen’s clerk (sound familiar?)
to the effect that a witness had spoken to the fact that he thought
Thomas Hamilton was not a Mason.
is appalled that to ask a known Mason, Deuchers
(who drank with Hamilton’s Mason
father Jimmy in the Lodge at Stirling) whether “Young Tom”
was a Mason could be classed as enquiring. Then
to accept the negative answer of a Mason
as sufficient proof of Hamilton’s
non-Masonic status. The comments in
Hamilton’s own letter are inconclusive.
This aspect of the Dunblane Inquiry
is a contradiction in terms.
of the embargoed document as being police
files containing sensitive information on damaged and vulnerable young
people is ‘cant and lies’ and the 100-year
embargo can only be seen by the petitioner to be a means
of suppressing the high level of Masonic
concealment by the Police and Lord Cullen
in the Dunblane Inquiry. This in the
petitioners view is the only explanation for such Draconian measures
being taken to bury evidence of reasonable requests in the public
interest, which were then ignored, and are now being hidden by unlawful
matter was discovered by the petitioner in the course of his research
into the apparent public perception of lies, and Masonic
cover-up attached to the Dunblane Inquiry.
This was the alleged abuse of boys at the Queen
Victoria School, Dunblane.
Victoria School is a short distance from the Dunblane
Primary School where the shootings took place and is
a boarding school for sons of servicemen and, as such, is under the
supervision of a Board of Governors headed by The
Duke of Edinburgh. That
there were allegations of abuse of the boys at this school is a matter
of record, and one housemaster who made these allegations spent 3
years after being forced from the school complaining to all and sundry
about this abuse but to no avail.
who was working his notice after resigning, had the door of his flat
smashed down with a sledgehammer by the Police,
who took him to the police station and he was not allowed to return
to his door-less flat.
has spoken at length to the housemaster and the story that unfolds
is a very harrowing one of a lone voice trying to protect his charges
and complain about the abusers only to be silenced by the authorities,
who the housemaster is convinced were protected by the bonds of Freemasonry.
tells of prominent Military figures, Politicians and senior Scottish
legal figures including Judges, Sheriffs and Fiscals being part of
a group called the “Friends
of QVS” some of who took pupils out
of school to their houses for the weekend and abused them.
figure who was classed as a “Friend of QVS"
and had the run of the school (including the shooting range) and was
implicated in this abuse was later identified by the housemaster as
was to hear from the housemaster that he believed that among the visitors
to the school was Lord Cullen who would
later, as Lord Justice Clerk, go on to become one of HM’s Commissioners
to the school and Ian
Lang who was chief Commissioner at the time.
was also told of attempted suicides by boys, which were hushed up.
The fact that
allegations of abuse at Queen Victoria School
had been made and invest-igated, is indisputable as Hansard records
it, and it is inconceivable to the petitioner, at least, that the
events at QVS did not receive a single word
of mention in the Dunblane Inquiry.
related to the petitioner how he tried during the time he was at QVS
(1990-91) to bring the abuses at the school to the attention of the
School Commission-ers, School Staff, Police, Fiscal, and Education
authorities to no avail. The police
eventually smashed his door down with a sledgehammer and removed
some of his complaint documents, which were never returned.
The petitioner believes that this cover-up at QVS
allowed and encouraged Thomas Hamilton to
go on to greater deeds of evil, secure in a belief of immunity from
in the petitioners view, many disturbing aspects of the QVS
incidents, not least why there was no mention of them in relation
to the later Inquiry into the other Dunblane
school, and one can only guess at the reasons for excluding Thomas
Hamilton’s activities at QVS. Membership
of the Masons is a tempting theory to explain
the inexplicable. The Masons say they
can’t find him as being a member but offer no conclusive proof
and admit that they do not have a comprehensive membership register. However
the petitioner has another possible reason for the apparent reluctance
of the Dunblane Inquiry to examine this
issue of QVS, and the reason may be attributable
to another secret society, The
of QVS, the Duke
of Edinburgh is a member of the ‘Speculative
Society’, as was another of HM Commissioners the
Lord Justice Clerk, Lord
Ross. Another ‘Spec’
MacLehose was also a commissioner of QVS,
as was the Sheriff at Stirling at the time R. Younger.
These facts coupled with the fact that the Lord
Cullen, also a ‘Spec’
member would have been investigating his superior, Lord
Ross and the Secretary of State,
who as President of HM Commissioners is the person who granted him
(Cullen) his Warrant and set the terms of
his Remit. In the petitioners view these vested interests must
have been instrumental in the Dunblane Inquiry’s
failure to examine events at QVS.
There is another
aspect of the housemaster’s story that caused the petitioner
personal disquiet, and it concerns the complaint of abuse to the children
at QVS made by the housemaster. The
housemaster made complaints after leaving QVS
and moving to Shetland where for a further 3 years between 1991 and
1994 he pursued his complaints with many agencies/individuals, up
to and including his MP, Jim Wallace.
The house-master maintains that he was satisfied with Jim
Wallace’s handling of his complaint, (the causes
of which he attributed to Freemasonry) at
the time, but that later with hindsight he gained the impression that
Jim Wallace was a Mason.
When the complaint
was eventually dismissed by the MOD and Police
the housemaster wrote a letter, which sought assurances from Jim
Wallace that he was not a Mason.
In the absence of a reply he phoned Jim Wallace’s
house twice and was advised by Jim Wallace’s
wife on the second occasion that her husband had told her that he
was not a Mason.
Minister Jim Wallace has attempted to dismiss the petitioner's
PE306 on at least three occasions via third
party spokespersons, on the premise that the petitioner is the only
person in Scotland who has concerns regarding Freemasonry.
The Justice Minister is either suffering
from amnesia or is lying, as he must have been well aware of the housemaster's
concerns in this regard.
has sought at all times to verify claims made by the housemaster regard-ing
events at QVS and, in pursuit of the truth,
has wrote to The Patron and all of HM Commissioners who held office
during the period 1990-1996 and the current President of the Commissioners. To
say the least, the petitioner has not found any degree of cooperation
and in fact has been obstructed and lied to by the office of the Secretary
of State for Scotland, Helen Liddell MP. The
petitioner wrote to his MP to ask her to ask the Secretary
of State for Scotland (copied by e-mail to Liddell)
for information regarding the “Friends of QVS”. The
reply from both the petitioner's MP and the office
of the Secretary of State for Scotland was
distinctly hostile, and they first queried the petitioner, then ruled
that the matter was devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
of State for Scotland eventually accepted limited responsibility,
saying the enquiries the petitioner made were on matters that did
not fall within the knowledge of the Secretary of State
for Scotland, as her position as Commissioner was “purely
formal”. The Secretary of State for Scotland
initially attempted to transfer the matter off to the petitioner’s
MSP. This MSP, Scott Barrie, does
not seem to be answering the petitioner’s e-mails, and the petitioner's
MP, Rachel Squire seems to have gone into
found an interesting crossover link between the case of Victor
Duncan v The Secretary of State
and the Dunblane Inquiry and it concerns
Thomas Hamilton being cremated in the Municipal
Crematorium in Dundee. In researching the case of Victor
Duncan, the petitioner talked to Mr Duncan
about his personal experiences of Freemasonry
which were very much of a negative nature and best summed up by a
letter Mr Duncan wrote to the petitioner
relating the story of how a Dundee pensioner and newly widowed wife
of a staunch trade unionist, local politician and war hero had asked
that his dying wish be granted. That he be sent to meet his
maker to the strains of “The Red Flag”.
The newly bereaved
old lady was distressed to find that the staff of the Dundee crematorium
would not accede to her dearly-departed’s wishes, and refused
to allow their organist to be used for this purpose, but suggested
that if the widow could provide her own organist she could have her
late husband's wish granted.
Duncan was sickened that the same men who acted in this
way, had got out of bed in the dead of the night to secretly cremate
their brother Thomas Hamilton. Such
is the perception of Masonry.
is of the opinion that the last story, which is verifiable, encapsulates
the widespread negative feeling brought on by perceived malevolent
Masonic influence which allowed the Dunblane
cover-up. Hopefully those who know the true facts
will be motivated by remorse and decide to make a clean breast of
the affair. The new Inquiry (which
will come) must be a substantive, impartial, & fully transparent
investigation, and get to the bottom of the abuse of power, which
is widely seen as being the result of Masonic
bias, cover-up and secrecy in the police and justice system. The
petitioner asks the Justice 2 Committee
to carefully read the fine letters of William Burns
and the pitiful replies to them. The fact that helpful correspondence
was considered by Lord Cullen as meriting
burial for 100 years is inexcusable and
inexplicable, but Lord Cullen should be
brought before the Parliament to explain his actions. The
inoffensive and well written letters of William Burns
are appended in full to this submission.
Trial & Appeal.
Trial is unique in many aspects being the only trial
by a Scots Court without a jury in Holland.
unique Trial was first arranged by the Lord Advocate,
Fraser of Carmyllie who persuaded the Libyan
Government to agree to a trial in a neutral country.
Fraser was Lord Advocate
between 1989 and 1992. and as Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
had ultimate responsibility for the prosecution and trial arrangements
between those dates.
great deal of the credit for finalising the Libyan agreement to a
trial in Holland before a panel of Scottish Judges has gone to Professor
Robert Black of Edinburgh University dubbed
the “father of the trial”. [Ed.
~ Those underlined and in blue are all members of the highly suspect
and secretive Speculative
Society of Edinburgh.]
Trial was conducted by the following panel of Judges:
Substitute Judge Lord
Lockerbie Appeal was conducted by the following
panel of Judges:
Burns QC for the Defendant Abdelbaset
members involved are underlined on the list of Spec
judges to the left.
is aware that the petitioner carried out a survey by way of a one-page
flyer of the 440 practicing members of the Faculty of
Advocates to ascertain what support existed for the
terms of PE306. The respondents to
the survey amounted to 10% of the letters sent and recorded a 2-1
ratio favouring the aims of the petition.
Some of the
Advocates contacted the petitioner and made various points and several
of them were of the opinion that the Speculative Society
of Edinburgh (the Spec) was
a greater threat to the impartiality of the justice system than the
set about researching the "Speculative Society"
and was fortunate to find a “vanity” publication for the
members that gave membership details up to 1968. It was
immediately apparent to the petitioner that "the Spec"
was prominent in the higher echelons of the justice system and without
too much difficulty it was possible to figure that certain prominent
court cases had been decided by Judges who were in the main Speculators.
The petitioner was concerned that so many of our leading Judges
came from such a narrow and elitist society and compiled a critical
letter concerning "the Spec",
which he sent to all of the practicing Advocates as well as the Convener
of the Justice 2 Committee, and others.
was obtained by the petitioner which detailed ‘the Spec’
mem-bership up to date. The petitioner
wrote another critical article about "the Spec"
to the practicing Advocates and suggested a hypothesis similar to
the Lockerbie case asking the Advocates
if such a situation would pass the objective test of impartiality?
was of the opinion that so many members of a secret sodality would
not inspire confidence in the informed observer.
saw other newspaper articles which dealt with "the Spec". One
article suggested that the fact that the Lockerbie trial
had contained so many "Spec mem-bers"
had caused concern with the United Nations approved Independent Monitor
at the Trial, Professor Hans Koechler, President
of the International Progress Organisation. (IPO).
Koechler issued an IPO press release criticizing the
fact that so many "Spec members" had been
on the panels of the Lockerbie Trial and
was aware that the Prisoner, Megrahi’s
lawyer Edward McKechnie intended appealing
his clients case to the ECHR and the petitioner
wrote to inform Mr McKechnie of a possible
basis of legal challenge regarding what the petitioner saw as a glaring
example of the suspicion that can be aroused by undeclared membership
of secret societies.
wrote back to the petitioner noting that the point made was a valid
one but stating that he would not wish to upset one of his most vociferous
Robert Black if he made this challenge as
Professor Black was a Speculator.
of Kofi Annan to act as an independent monitor
to the Lockerbie Trial, Professor
Koechler is on record as stating that if he had known
of the existence of so many members of a group of friends, similar
in tradition to the Masonic orders, he would
have included it in his report to the United Nations. As
President of the International Progress Organisation, Professor
Hans Koechler gave the petitioner his permission to
use the IPO press release as evidence for the Justice
2 Committee hearing into the petition PE306. Furthermore
the Professor wished the petitioner well with his petition, which
he described as splendid and necessary for the Scottish Justice System.
legal community will judge Scots Law by examining the Lockerbie
Trial and Appeal, and while the petitioner has no view
on the innocence or guilt of Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi
the petitioner is convinced that he has not received a fair trial
by an independent and impartial tribunal as the law demands. The
petitioner has written to the prisoner to ask him whether or not he
thought that the matter of Speculative Society
membership among so many of the Trial and Appeal officials concerned
him. The petitioner awaits a response. The petitioner
urges the Justice 2 Committee to carefully read the
IPO press release and e-mail correspondence appended to this document.
The Skye Bridge
and Others v. Hingston. Unreported. 16 December 1999.
Sutherland, Lord Marnoch (Spec)
and Lord Cowie (Spec)
quotes the Synopsis of the Skye Bridge defendant,
Robbie the Pict:
to propriety of 3 items of subordinate legislation, legality of criminal
prosecution on the basis of unpublished law, unlawful agency of statutory
powers without entitlement, failure of Secretary of State
to assign rights to the Concessionaire and failure of the Secretary
of State to make an official statement identifying the
concessionaire and his shareholders, as required by statute (no date,
no name, no signature and not true). Discrepancy of some eighty
million pounds (£80m) in "official" paperwork challenged. £20
million simply missing.
to the failure to comply with statutory requirements, the responsibility
of the Minister of Transport Lord
James Douglas-Hamilton (SPEC).
Sutherland held that subordinate instruments were properly
classified as "local", despite relating to a national trunk
road, being the responsibility of the Secretary of State and not issued
by the local roads authority; that legislation contained no regulation
of any kind of the road, and therefore did not need Parliamentary
scrutiny; only the right to collect had been transferred and that
the right to charge tolls had remained with the Concessionaire,
so the collecting company did not need public paperwork for a private
defines the crime complained of by the appellants. It is an
offence to attempt to collect without being in lawful authority of
the assigned right to charge. Lord Sutherland
admits of the crime but denies it simultaneously. His Lordship
also admits that there is a statutory defence available to those objecting
to being prosecuted on the basis of unpublished law, but does not
grant it. Lack of date, name, subscription or veracity of the
Assignation Statement is left unanswered.
documentary evidence declared flawless on basis of 'Omnia rite et
solemniter acta praesumuntur', as SPEC member
Lord Ross has said. Lord Marnoch
(also a Spec member) writes an individual Opinion
mocking the public’s attempts to ascertain legality and stating
that "the importance of the maxim ‘omnia rite et solemniter
acta praesumuntur’ cannot be underestimated"!
of defending oneself by arguing "no case to answer", in
that one has a reasonable excuse for not complying when it can be
demonstrated that there is no lawful toll regime in place, takes a
serious dent when the Court pre-decides that the Crown’s
evidence of competent legislation being in place is beyond challenge. The
Crown can go home with their job done for
is aware of the facts surrounding the petitioner's research into the
Speculative Society of Edinburgh, however,
the Committee may not be aware of the fact that when the petitioner
sent his findings in relation to the Spec
to the Committee, he also sent the same information to a series of
public figures in Scottish society.
One of the
people chosen by the petitioner to be what in effect was a witness
was Robbie the Pict (the Pict)
who was not known to the petitioner. The petitioner had never
met the Pict, but admired his campaign against
the Skye Bridge tolls, and had phoned the
Pict to advise him of a case of corruption
involving one of the Skye Bridge companies
that was within the personal knowledge of the petitioner.
of the Pict to the Spec membership
among officials and others in his trial belonging to "the Spec"
was, as the petitioner expected, outrage.
proposed a hypothetical scenario in which a non-Masonic
Claimant finds, after losing a court case, that the
Judge/Sheriff is a Mason, the Respondent
is a Mason, the Advocate Depute/Procurator
Fiscal are all Masons.
have the appearance of impartiality?
The reaction of not just the Pict, but of
1200 outraged Skye residents who after learning
of "the Spec" presence signed
a petition of protest gave a clear answer, no.
and secret Speculative Society (whose aims
are not known) being in disproportionate numbers in positions of influence
in the justice system, would cause the petitioner the same disquiet
that any other type of organisations, such as the Freemasons
would cause in similar circumstances.
The above case
is but one of the many Skye Bridge cases
where at least one secret society has had a dominant
role in that many of the judges, and other key figures in these cases
have an undefined and undeclared interest.
I urge the
Justice 2 Committee to carefully read the
submissions of Robbie the Pict on behalf
of the Skye Bridge Toll protest group to
the Gill Judicial Inquiry which is examining the question of:
will lodge a copy of his submissions to the Justice 2
Committee with the Lord Gill Inquiry. It is the
petitioner's hope that they will give it
their consideration as they deal with the matters while at avizandum.
Stott v Minogue
A Criminal Trial at Dunfermline Sheriff Court.
has never informed the Justice Committee of the actual details of
his own court case, rather he has limited his arguments to the legal
principles as he sees them. The reason that the petitioner did
not expand on the events leading to his trial and acquittal of criminal
charges is as follows:
impact, if any, of membership of a private society on the integrity
of the judicial process. It involves contentious questions
of fact, none of which are within judicial knowledge, and the making
of a judgement on the significance of such facts as are established.”
petitioner was conscious that at the time he petitioned Parliament
he was awaiting trial, or on trial. It was felt by the
petitioner that the support he sought for his petition was solely
for the principle of objective impartiality. This had not been
adequat-ely dealt with by the Court, which heard it as a preliminary
petitioner did not seek to involve anyone by way of association with
the trumped-up criminal charges brought against him, lest by chance
the charges were proven.
1999, the petitioner received a phone call from the police
asking him to attend his factory unit at 9 pm, and on doing so was
asked to allow the police to search his premises. The petitioner
acceded to this request and answered all questions that were asked
of him up to a point where to have answered would have been to admit
to theft. Eg: what have you done with the stolen property, which
was taken during the break-in?
knew of the matters (which were commercial and complex and known to
the petitioner’s lawyers) to which the police were mistakenly
referring to as theft and break-in, and would only agree to make further
statements after consulting with his legal representative.
took the petitioner into custody and confiscated his car without a
warrant. Releasing the petitioner without charge and without
access to his lawyer some three hours later.
The next day,
the petitioner’s lawyers immediately wrote to the Chief Constable
of Fife and the Superintendent at Dunfermline protesting and pointing
out that their client would make a full statement in the presence
of his solicitor.
were faxed to the Chief Constable and Superintendent, but to no avail,
and that evening less, than 24 hours after the claimant had allowed
the police unrestricted access to his premises,
the police arrived back in numbers. 10 plain-clothes officers
descended on a busy heavy engineering works and office complex, and
as one employee stated, under caution, “behaved like football
in charge of a search warrant (which was signed by a well known
Masonic Sheriff) would not let the petitioner take
a copy of its terms, but did allow the petitioner to note the terms
of the warrant which allowed the officers to search for large railway
bridge parts made of heavy steel and a lorry.
At one point
the officers called for a heavy lift crane to remove some large steel
sections, which, action by unskilled policemen, could have resulted
in loss of life. The rowdy and inexplicable behaviour of the
police intensified and when the officers began ransacking filing cabinets
and accessing the office PCs the petitioner began to under-stand that
a sinister or secret agenda was being followed.
There was nothing
secret about the Masonic lapel badge that
one officer wore, or the Masonic belt symbol
another sported. As suddenly as the ten plain-clothes officers
arrived, they left taking a lorry.
morning the claimant’s solicitors had bailiffs hand-deliver
letters of protest to the Chief Constable and the Superintendent at
Dunfermline, but to no avail.
of the intervention of lawyers the petitioner was arrested by four
officers and his car was confiscated. For several hours
the petitioner was held in custody and would make no statement as
to the whereabouts of the disputed content of the bridge steelwork
until he met with his solicitor.
with his solicitor the petitioner received an assurance from the police
and the fiscal that agreement had been reached that the disputed material
would be retained in the police compound pending resolution of the
disputed elements within the steelwork.
Only then would
the petitioner give a full statement including the assertion that
it was his belief that there was a sinister force such as Freemasonry
at work. Before the petition-er had left the police
station, after making a full statement and being charged with theft
and housebreaking the agreement had been broken by the police.
using the lorry of the litigant’s competitor, (who had taken
steelwork belong-ing to the petitioner) gave the disputed steelwork
to a company that the petitioner was in dispute with regarding unpaid
bills. The unpaid amounts were subsequently recovered by arrestment
order of the High Court with the petitioner being paid somewhere in
the region of £30,000.00, including interest for late payment,
and legal costs.
So the police
had acted as a private army on behalf of the petitioner’s main
trade competitor (who stood to benefit most by discrediting the petitioner)
and the petitioner's (soon to be adjudged) criminally late debtor
who was also a direct competitor for railway bridge engineering work.
As it is the
petitioner’s experience, that inexplicable events often coincide
with the presence of Masons in number, and
so, still charged with the crimes of house breaking and theft, the
petitioner felt less than enthusiastic at his prospects of appearing
before a Masonic Magistrate. Perhaps
the same one who had signed the flawed search warrant. The
examined a litigant’s right to know if the Sheriff hearing their
case is a Mason.
In the event
the Sheriff who had signed the warrant used to search the petitioner’s
works died in the back of his car while having sex, underneath or
on top of a prostitute, in Tower Street, Leith. At this stage
the petitioner was not comfortable with the appear-ance of impartiality
demonstrated by the justice system and felt sure that the inexplic-able
actions of the officials concerned were involved with Freemasonry.
At a pleading
diet, the petitioner intimated through his solicitor that he wished
to address the bench. The Sheriff told the petitioner's
solicitor to take his client aside and dissuade him from this wish. The
petitioner knew his mind and when all other cases had been disposed
of and he appeared before the Sheriff, the solicitor acting on the
petitioner’s instructions again asked the Sheriff if his client
might address the bench.
told the petitioner that if he wished to address the bench he (the
petitioner) would have to discharge his solicitor and from then on
conduct his own defence without a solicitor as he (the Sheriff) would
hear the trial and this required continuity.
agreed to the Sheriff's demand knowing it to be illegal bluster, and
advised the Sheriff that at trial he (the petitioner) would seek assurances
from the bench regarding Masonic membership. The
Sheriff hearing this then decided that he would transfer the case
to a lady Sheriff.
The lady Sheriff,
on hearing full legal argument, neatly sidestepped the argument in
principle, but satisfied the petitioner’s immediate concerns
when she made a declaration over and above her judicial oath obligations,
which she described as being the ethical duty of her profession. The
Sheriff gave the petitioner an undertaking that:
have nothing to disclose which could give rise to concern regarding
my objective impartiality in this case.”
took the Sheriff's statement as an implicit assurance that she had
no links with Freemasonry and thanked her
for exercising her discretion in this way.
trial then got under way in the manner that the petitioner has still
diffic-ulty believing. The fiscal lost the first Sheriff's warrant
and produced a different warrant, in different terms, signed by a
different Sheriff, only to loose both warrants.
After the Crown's
prosecution witnesses had come and gone, the fiscal was forced to
introduce another three crown witnesses
not cited to appear in the trial. The fiscal only saw fit to
produce one of the ten plain-clothes officers, and then the most junior
and only female officer from the 10 strong squad of senior police
officers who had ransacked the petitioner’s offices and works.
A total of
seven days were taken up by the trial and the petitioner was pleased
to hear the Sheriff in summing-up say that she did not consider there
to have been any attempt by the police to investigate the petitioner's
further criticised the Crown's main witness
(the litigant’s competitor who acted as transport manager for
the police) who, she said, gave a different
version of events every time he stepped into the witness box. Not
surprisingly then, the Sheriff found the petitioner not guilty of
the charges brought against him.
But what if
the petitioner had not challenged the Bench and the 9 senior police
officers (posted missing for the trial) who acted so disgracefully,
had felt as confident to appear in court unchallenged as they had
been when they intimidated the petitioner and his staff? The
petitioner would not like any other person to experience what he experienced
and which, the petitioner believes, is Masonic
influence out of control.
check against such abuse of power is the Judge or Sheriff, and it
is the firm belief of the petitioner that the affiliations of these
public officials should be known as of a clear right to court
users, so that in circumstance such as those described, or where there
is a concern, a litigant can feel safe that he will not be deprived
of the right to have confidence in the tribunal judging him.
petitioner spent many thousands of pounds and much time in persuading
the court at Dunfermline, that which is his by right under law. The
interests of judges should not only be open to challenge by the well-heeled.
the Five examples.
has expressed his view to the Committee that he considers it unfair
that he has in effect had to prove his contentions by giving a series
of examples of cases where a judge/sheriff's membership of organisations
such as the Freemasons has caused a problem. The
petitioner considers that his petition should have been considered
on its merits alone.
2 Committee did not have the petitioner's preference
as an option at its last meeting and, without the benefit of speaking
to the petition's merits, the petitioner urged the Committee to chose
the best of a bad bunch of options. The other two options: Referral
to the Judicial Appointments Board, or do nothing, amounted to the
same thing as the J.A.B., loaded as it is with known Speculators and
reputed Masons, would have been unlikely
to have welcomed moves for the declaration of membership of secret
would ask the Committee to accept that the level of proof of a widespread
problem regarding a tribunal's appearance of impartiality that the
petitioner was invited to provide has been met.
The case of
Victor Duncan, the housemaster, and the
concerns of William Burns are of individuals
who are concerned with the influence of Freemasonry,
as is the petition-er's own case, but the concerns about the Dunblane
Inquiry and its subsequent cover-up
are not confined to the housemaster and William Burns,
but are widespread in Scotland among non-Masons
and Masons for all I know, and are growing.
of concerns regarding another secret society, the Speculative
Society and its influence in the justice system are
also growing to such a degree that they are at present the subject
of a Judicial Inquiry. The Committee is well aware of my concerns
and written submissions in this regard and I have apprised the Committee
of evidence about the society as it becomes known to me.
of the Independent, UN appointed monitor to the Lockerbie
Trial regard-ing the Spec
cannot be dismissed lightly, and his concerns, together with the concerns
of Robbie the Pict and the 1200 people of
Skye who are signatories to a petition because
of what they perceive is unjust treatment, cannot be ignored.
evidence is that the undeclared membership of secret societies by
Judges and Sheriffs is perceived as a problem in Scotland.
of secrecy will argue that the Judicial oath is a sufficient guarantee
against a judge's membership of a secret society. Says who?
of the judicial oath was Lord Cullen adhering
to when he buried the 106 documents for 100-years?
Can it be
said it was without fear?
Which, of the
Masonic Judges' oaths does he prefer?
The petitioner is not an expert on oaths, but there
is little doubt which oath
carries the stricter penalties. A
slap on the wrists by the Lord Advocate
pales into insignificance with the blood curdling torture and death
that the Masonic miscreant might expect.
believes that Judges are mere human beings and should be accorded
respect where it is warranted but should not be treated with too much
deference and should be governed by terms of employment as are all
It is in the
gift of the Justice 2 to legislate change to the terms by which judges
are employed and I believe that the introduction of measures to require
a judge to register his membership of secret societies such as Freemasonry
is not unreasonable given the public perception of such organisations.
trusts that his submissions have made the case for declarations by
judges which would increase the public confidence in the justice system,
prevent unnecessary legal challenge and enhance the reputation of
Parliament and the Judiciary.
Thomas Minogue, Petitioner.