Petition by Tom Minogue to the Justice
2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament.
The matter under consideration by
the Justice 2 Committee:
Petition 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
The Justice 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 Freemasons. 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, intimating that he would comply with
the Committee's invitation to make timeous written submissions.
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, Bill Aitken.
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 Freemasons, 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 compliant with the law of the land, with particular
reference to ECHR.
Petitioners Submission on the points of law:
Under Article 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 by law.”
For the purposes of Article 6(1) the existence of
impartiality is to be determined according to two tests, one subjective
and one objective (Hauschildt v Denmark (1989) 12 EHRR 266)
The subjective 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:
Like 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
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
The petitioner 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 Masons.
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 of Freemasonry.
The penalties 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. LINK
In the petitioners own experience, which is set out
at Example No 3, the Sheriff at Dunfermline 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 oath.
The Sheriff (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 as being:
“the confidence which the courts must inspire
in those subjects in their jurisdiction”
The petitioner 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”. LINK
The simplistic 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 examples would have Ku Klux Klan (not a proscribed
organisation) Judges sitting in judgement of black litigants, or British
Union of Fascist Judges sitting in judgement on Jewish litigants,
and this the apologists argue, would be fine.
Another situation 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.
The petitioner 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 under challenge.
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 challenges
and the grounds for such challenges will be provided by judges wishing
to cling on to anachronistic rituals and promises to keep secrets.
The Justice 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.
Given the 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 caused problems.
Victor 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).
The Commissioner 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
The Commissioner 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 Freemasonry.
Despite Mr 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
“In 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, & concluded:
'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
The Commissioner 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 argument.
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.
The Dunblane Inquiry:
A Tribunal in terms of Section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence)
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 perpetrator
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 synopsis below.
Synopsis of the petitioner’s research into
the Dunblane Inquiry.
The petitioner 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.
The petitioner 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
The Private 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
Lord Cullen has yet to answer.
The petitioner 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.
Soon after 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. LINK
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.
The petitioner 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 to Freemasonry.
The files in question are at 105/1-2 and are described
1996 Apr-Jul Additional Productions
Correspondence between Clerk to the Inquiry and William Burns,
South Queensferry, West Lothian, regarding possible affiliations
of Thomas Hamilton with Freemasonry, and relevant extracts from
Inquiry transcript, and copy letters from Thomas Hamilton (R77)
The petitioner contacted William Burns who kindly
provided the petitioner with copies of all of his submissions to the
Dunblane Inquiry. LINK
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 a Freemason.
The William 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.
William 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.
The petitioner 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. LINK
The description 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 means.
Another disturbing 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.
The Queen 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. LINK
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.
The housemaster, 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 doorless flat.
The petitioner 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.
The housemaster 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. LINK
One 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 Thomas Hamilton.
The petitioner 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. LINK
The petitioner 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 investigated, 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
The housemaster 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 Commissioners, 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 justice.
There are, 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 Speculative Society.
The Patron of QVS, the Duke of Edinburgh is a member
of the ‘Speculative Society’ LINK,
as was another of HM Commissioners the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Ross
Another ‘Spec’ member, D MacLehose LINK,
was also a commissioner of QVS LINK,
as was the Sheriff at Stirling at the time R. Younger.
These facts coupled with the fact that the Lord Cullen, also a ‘Spec’
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 housemaster 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.
[Ed ~ Once again, this could be the Masonic ruse of getting
someone else to deny on your behalf any affiliation with Freemasonry.
The Justice 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
The petitioner has sought at all times to verify
claims made by the housemaster regarding 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
The Secretary 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
The petitioner 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.
Victor 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.
The petitioner 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.
The Lockerbie Trial &
The Lockerbie Trial is unique in many aspects being
the only trial by a Scots Court without a jury in Holland.
This unique Trial was first
arranged by the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie who persuaded
the Libyan Government to agree to a trial in a neutral country. LINK
Peter 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. LINK
A 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 below are all members of the highly
suspect and secretive Speculative Society of Edinburgh - founded by
Masons in Lodge Canongate Kilwinning No 2 LINK
- of which Professor Robert Black is also a member. LINK]
The Lockerbie Trial was conducted by the following
panel of Judges:
Lord Sutherland, Chair
Substitute Judge Lord
The Lockerbie Appeal was conducted
by the following panel of Judges:
Cullen [Ed ~ Also a Spec member LINK]
Burns QC for the Defendant Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi
Legend: Spec members involved are underlined on the
list of Spec judges to the left.
The Committee 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 Masons.
The Petitioner 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,
Further documentation was obtained by the petitioner
which detailed ‘the Spec’ membership 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?
The petitioner was of the opinion that so many members
of a secret sodality would not inspire confidence in the informed
The petitioner saw other newspaper articles which
dealt with "the Spec". One article suggested
that the fact that the Lockerbie trial had contained so many "Spec
members" had caused concern with the United Nations approved
Independent Monitor at the Trial, Professor Hans Koechler, President
of the International Progress Organisation. (IPO).
Professor Koechler issued an IPO press release criticizing
the fact that so many "Spec members" had been on the panels
of the Lockerbie Trial and Appeal.
The petitioner 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.
Mr McKechnie 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 supporters Professor Robert
Black if he made this challenge as Professor Black was a Speculator.
The nominee 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.
The international 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 LINK. 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 Cases.
Alexander Smith and Others v. Hingston. Unreported.
16 December 1999.
Lord Sutherland, Lord Marnoch (Spec) and Lord Cowie
The petitioner quotes the Synopsis of the Skye Bridge
defendant, Robbie the Pict:
Challenges 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.
Fifth challenge to the failure to comply with statutory
requirements, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport Lord
James Douglas-Hamilton LINK
Lord 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 arrangement.
That perfectly 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.
All Crown 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
The strategy 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 them.
The Committee 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
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.
The reaction of the Pict to the Spec membership among
officials and others in his trial belonging to "the Spec"
was, as the petitioner expected, outrage.
The petitioner 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.
Would this 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.
The quasi-Masonic 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
The petitioner 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.
The petitioner 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:
the 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.”
Firstly, the 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 adequately dealt with by the Court, which heard it as
a preliminary issue.
Secondly, the 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.
Series of Events.
In September 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?
The petitioner 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.
The police 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 petitione'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.
These letters 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
The officer 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 understand that a sinister or secret agenda was
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
The following 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.
Regardless 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.
After consulting 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
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 petitioner had
left the police station, after making a full statement and being charged
with theft and housebreaking the agreement had been broken by the
The police, using the lorry of the litigant’s
competitor, (who had taken steelwork belonging 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 petitioner
seriously 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 appearance of impartiality demonstrated by the justice system
and felt sure that the inexplicable 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.
The Sheriff 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.
The petitioner 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:
“I have nothing
to disclose which could give rise to concern regarding my objective
impartiality in this case.”
The petitioner 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.
The petitioner's trial then got under way in the
manner that the petitioner has still difficulty 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
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 claim.
Sheriff McColl 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.
The final 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
Secondly the 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.
Summary of the Five examples.
The petitioner 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.
The Justice 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 societies.
The petitioner 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 petitioner'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.
The question 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
The concerns of the Independent, UN appointed monitor
to the Lockerbie Trial regarding 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.
The overwhelming evidence is that the undeclared
membership of secret societies by Judges and Sheriffs is perceived
as a problem in Scotland.
The defenders of secrecy will argue that the
Judicial oath is a sufficient guarantee against a judge's membership
of a secret society. Says who?
What aspect 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?
Judicial v Masonic
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. LINK
The petitioner 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 public officials.
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.
The petitioner 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.