Poll Tax

 

Of all the professions known to mankind, no chosen career could come near surpassing the extended Legal Profession in Scotland for such a high percentage of sharks, swindlers and thieves.
27 January 2003
scales
Judicial Mafia
swag
devil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Woodentop (a.k.a. Shi*house) & Stolen (John Gordon) Sterling
Aver & Err with Confrere Herr (George Leslie) Kerr
In Cahoots with Lords Coco Boyd, Philip, Johnston & Slyboots Coutts
(The third named being a member of the Exclusive, Secretive and Highly-Suspect Speculative Society)
Contemptible Thieves & Liars - Looting Limbs of Satan
Fraudulent Hounds from Hell - Lawless Spawns of the Devil
"Legal" Extremists & Accessories to Extortion
Cast into Slavery by Political & Criminal Corruption
Associates of Low-Life MAGGOTS in the CRIME PROTECTION SYNDICATE
Racketeering Accountants in Stage-managed Bankruptcies
Office of the Cash-and-Carry K A N G A R O O Accountant in Bankruptcy
M A S O N V I L L E
G A N G S T E R D O M
M O B S T E R M A N O R
Skulduggery House Framing Gallery
126 George Street
EDINBURGH EH2 4JZ
Scotland
E.C.

Nemo habetur agere dolose qui jure suo utitor: No one is held to act wrongfully or fraudulently) who acts in the exercise of his rights (Fraser, ii. 1009).


Dear Corrupt Woodentops, Stevie Shi*house & Stolen Sterling

STAGE-MANAGED, INVALID SEQUESTRATION & DEFERMENT

I thought the blatant embezzlement I have exposed over the past 12 years or so was as bad as it would get, but now I see your skulduggery has surpassed even my greatest expectations.  What I did not expect was that you would be contemptuous of the ruling by Lord Philip on the first day of the mistermed, "Proof" hearing in Court 14 of the Court of Session on Thursday, 26 November 1998, when he indicated that the "dripping roast" must stop oozing copious flows of rich pickings for the gravy train riders in order to prevent them from filching further unlimited filthy lucre from the public purse when there is no prospect of that money being recovered.

Indeed, this contempt tended you to increase the level of embezzlement rather than discontinue it. J S S Graham, Chartered Racketeer with the Ernst & Young Gang, who was illegally imposed as the new pretended trustee, sent me a letter dated 15 March 2002, informing me: "The Accountant in Bankruptcy has examined and audited the account of intromission of J S S Graham as permanent trustee covering the period from 24 May 1999 to 23 November 2001. The account closes with a balance of £10.00 due to the trustee. The Accountant fixes the trustee's remuneration for the aforementioned period at £1,587.25 (exclusive of VAT) and outlays of £25,421.14."

This accounting period started six months after Lord Philip made his ruling in court to wizen the dripping roast, and it ended three years after his ruling.  It was also – for the fourteenth time – submitted outwith the time-bar period prescribed by law.  That apart, in Lord Philip's ruling at paragraph 16 on page 10 of his Opinion, issued on 14 June 2000, it stated: "In my view it is in the public interest that sequestration should be brought to an end and should not be allowed to drift on for an indeterminate period." LINK    Lord Philip must now be feeling very foolish indeed, having learned that his accomplices in the Crime Protection Syndicate, to whom he has been only too generous in the past, have totally ignored his directive in court, and have once again charged up the gravy train. This also lends credence to the fact that Lord Philip presided over a pretentious show hearing in a kangaroo court.

I have reported this latest flaunting fraud of yours and your henchman, Grim Graham, the phoney trustee, to the Chief Constable and also to the Lord Advocate, supplying them with prima-facie evidence to convict you both. I have also advised them that I look forward to presenting that evidence to the criminal court to effect a conviction against you.

The white-collar criminal activities of crooked "Citizens-Above-Suspicion", like yourselves, can no longer be carried out with impunity, with the operatives remaining totally unaccountable.

Nonetheless, as has been previously advised, nothing in your letters of 9 January 2002, 22 September, 10 July & 13 June 2000 has dealt with all the points I raised.   I will therefore repeat the content of my letters to you of 16 December; 22 July, 8 April & 7 January 2002; 8 November; 10 September; 16 July; 21 May; 23 April; 12 March; 19 February &15 January 2001; 11 December; 13 November; 16 October; 8 September; 9 August; 29 June; 29 May and 28 April 2000 in full below so that you may desist from your maladministration and respond accordingly:

Thank you for your Letter of 26 April 2000 in response to my earlier letter of 17 April 2000.

You say there is nothing to add to the replies I have received from your predecessor, Herr George Leslie Kerr, illustrating that you are determined to ignore the fact that I was made bankrupt through an illicit process.  I must assume, therefore, that you are a willing accomplice with all the low-life maggots in our legal "injustice" system's covin's Crime Protection Syndicate, so I will continue to reiterate the terms of my letters of 17 April; 5 March; 27 February & 4 January 1999 until such times as you respond to ALL its content in accordance with proper legislative practices.

Thank you [Herr George Leslie Kerr] for your letter of 26 November 1999 in cynical response to my letter of 20 November 1999, assuring me that you, Geordie Les Kerr [and now Stevie Woodentop, a.k.a. Shi*house] are … morally bankrupt little men who avoid guilt at all costs by refusing to accept responsibility for your own actions.

For example, you claim you have responded to ALL the points I raised in this and in previous letters.  What about your letter of 11 March 1997 in which you claimed that my stage-managed, then railroaded, bankruptcy resulted from outstanding arrears of Community Charge to the Local authority when it was no such thing?  If you had as much as read my letters – even forgetting for the minute your general maladministration of not responding to them properly – you would know the pretended, phoney debt clearly resulted from a personal claim for court expenses by an individual, Ian M Rogers, who worked for the former Lothian Regional Council, but whose job was made redundant on Monday, 5 April 1993. LINK    Does Graham Ritchie, the first illegally imposed pretended trustee with the Ernst & Young Gang even know where to find Ian M Rogers?  It is highly unlikely, but even if he did, in bankruptcy cases, Graham Ritchie has a superior claim for his expenses than what Ian M Rogers has for the original phoney debt.  Ian M Rogers' claim was overridden and nullified by Graham Ritchie's expenses in the first six months of the sequestration, so he would no longer have the remotest interest in the phoney debt.

That aside, unbeknown to me at the time, an offer was made by a third party on 9 May 1995 to pay the pretended debt.   Did Graham Ritchie inform Ian M Rogers about the offer?   It was evidenced in Court 14 of the Court of Session on Thursday, 26 November 1998 that he did no such thing!  Yet this refusal to accept it was instrumental in creating enormous, by comparison, expenses for Graham Ritchie.

It was also evidenced in court that day by Maureen Leslie, on behalf of Graham Ritchie that you [Herr Kerr] advised them NOT to accept the offer.

So why have you not addressed even the one single issue about where exactly the pretended debt originated, and to whom it was supposedly owed, instead of fondly embracing myths?  It must be assumed you have a vested interest in the crimes if you are persistently colluding with all the reprobates in the Legal Profession's Crime Protection Syndicate.

[Incidentally, I note that the Ernst & Young Gang is being investigated by Equitable Life for negligence (The Scotsman, 16 April 2001), and that Ernst & Young also presented two different sets of accounts to Equitable Life, the Regulator and Investors, and that the big scandal has been kept quiet.  The crooked practices of the Ernst & Young Gang are being found out at last!!!]

In your latest letter, you still insist there is no prejudice against me. Why then did you advise the permanent trustee, so-called, not to accept the offer of payment?   You also said that I was afforded the opportunity to appeal on each and every occasion in the past against your decision to audit Graham Ritchie's accounts of intromission and that, even if I was not afforded the opportunity, I have a right to seek a remedy at a higher court.   Now I know you are trying to take the piss!   Either that or you are completely illiterate, incapable of reading this or previous letters. If this is the case, I sincerely sympathise, but you should have explained yourself years ago. If this is not the case, I must demand that you [and your successor, Stephen Woodentop] stop taking the piss and read, for once, all the facts contained in this letter, particularly about me being prevented from putting my case before the court [and, more recently, being prevented by the parasitical Lord Advocate of "citizens-above-suspicion", Lord Colin Bacteroid, of exercising my right to take out a private prosecution against you Stevie Woodentop, and Grim J S S Graham, in the event that he fails to do so himself, for embezzling the latest huge sums of money from the public purse, as mentioned hereinbefore].

You even have the colossal gall in this latest letter to suggest that you are above the law and capable of dismissing Statute as merely "technical matters".  This has been the problem with all you racketeers for over ten years.  You think you are "citizens-above-suspicion" with some divine right to ignore our laws, or to remodel them to suit your every scheming attempt to embezzle.

Section 53(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 is unequivocal in determining when claims for accounts of intromission are within or without the legislated time limits.  EVERY claim to date made by Graham Ritchie [and now the illegally imposed, Grim Graham] have been outwith the two-week time-bar limit prescribed by law and are therefore indisputably invalid, so please desist from hitting me with your "technicality" crap.  What is more, you have yet to audit accounts within six weeks of the accounting period, contrary to Section 53(3) of the above Act, so, again, please desist from hitting me with your "technicality" crap.  If laws can be so readily ignored or deemed merely "technical matters", my sequestration (were it not stage-managed and illegally imposed) must also be deemed just a technical matter, to be ignored by me and every other Tom, Dick and Harry.

It is also extremely significant that Graham Ritchie did not inform me about any audited account of intromission whatsoever until 17 months after the offer was made to pay the pretended debt by a third party; and this was only one month after his agents first acknowledged that the offer had ever been made at all; and this, of course, was after Ritchie's collusion with you [Herr Kerr, the former Accountant in Bankruptcy] not to accept the offer. Incidentally, the deferment of the discharge date was railroaded through the court on a fast track – in my absence and without intimation – FIVE MONTHS after the offer was made, and eleven months before the offer was even acknowledged.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding your claims to the contrary, you have not in the slightest responded to all the points I raised in my very relevant previous letter, so I repeat them below in the hope your maladministration will end and that you will now address all the points your selective mind prefers to forget.   If this supplication appears a mite repetitive at times, it is because of your refusal to address these points:

I see you are up to your corrupt little games again.  In a letter dated 9 November 1999 I was informed by Bitchy Graham CockRoachie, Chartered Racketeer with the Ernst & Young Gang, that you have once again audited an account of intromission for his self-inflicted phoney accounts for the period covering 24 November 1998 to 23 May 1999 to the tune of £767.00 (exclusive of VAT) for remuneration and £10.00 for outlays, and that I have 14 days to appeal. In accordance with the legislation he suggested in this and all his previous extortion notes (i.e. Section 53(6) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985) I lodged an appeal with the Sheriff Court against your decision to acquiesce in his repeated attempts to defraud the public purse by having his phoney accounts audited.

Even though the kangaroo Sheriff Court will probably ignore my right to appeal against your decision, similar to what it has sinisterly done on all the previous occasions, I nevertheless lodged an appeal, pointing out how you both contravened Section 53(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, which prescribes: "Within 2 weeks after the end of an accounting period, the permanent trustee shall in respect of that period submit to the commissioners or, if there are no commissioners, to the Accountant in Bankruptcy:- (a) his accounts of intromission … ; and (b) a claim for the outlays reasonably incurred by him and a claim for remuneration."

Apart from all the blatant contraventions that occurred in the courts and in the citadels of silence, the reason I gave for the contravention under Section 53(1) was that the outlays were by no stretch of the imagination "reasonably incurred". This was because there are NO creditors, yet Graham BankRitchie still sees fit to send ONE circular to ONE pretended, phoney creditor, inducing the enormous expense of £767.00. forgetting not that his claim was time-barred by FIVE MONTHS.

Additionally, at the top of his letter of 9 November 1999 was the name and address the long-demised and non-existent "Lothian Regional Council", as if to signify that the former council was somehow the (pretended) creditor.  But even in Sheriff Peter G B McNeill's kangaroo bankruptcy court, the stage-managed sequestration was awarded not in favour of Lothian Regional Council but in favour of Ian M Rogers.  And it was awarded in respect of his self-inflicted legal fees.  He hired for a mouthpiece in an earlier case the extravagant services of an advocate, who became Britain's youngest judge, Robert Reed.  It had nothing to do with the now defunct Council.  This is explained in more detail hereinafter.

Regardless, you have still not responded to my letter of 29 October 1999, so I will reiterate its terms below to assist you to respond in a fitting manner to ALL the points I raised:

Thank you for your letter of 22 September 1999 in response to my letter of the 20 September 1999.

Notwithstanding your assertions to the contrary, you have not properly addressed all the matters raised in my earlier letters.  And, as I have told you repeatedly, on every occasion you have audited the accounts of Graham Ritchie – all of which were time-barred – I have appealed to the Sheriff Court against your decision, but my right to appeal has been sinisterly and illegally ignored every single time.

In answer to your second point, I have in fact sought a remedy in a higher court, the Court of Session, against the injustices I have suffered at the hands of politically and criminally corrupt sheriffs Bell and McNeill, but found that Temporary Lord Ordinary T. Gogs Coutts and Lord Big AL Johnston [and now Lord Sandy Filibuster Philip] are as corrupt as all the rest of you low-life maggots in the Legal Profession's Crime Protection Syndicate.

As regards your third point, you are persisting in the myth that I was sequestrated through a proper legal process and that the (invalid) deferment of the discharge date was conducted through proper legal channels.  However, I have illustrated categorically to you just how corrupt the entire process was.  I have also detailed how no sequestration exists, no discharge date exists, no deferment of the discharge date exists, no debtor exists and no creditor exists.  What is/are the word/words you have difficulty in understanding?   Even if there was a legitimate creditor, his job was made redundant on 5 April 1993, 25 months before a third party offered to pay the phoney, pretended debt. LINK  Of course, by that time there was no longer even a pretended creditor to either refuse the offer or to accept the offer!

In your final point you say that you cannot concern yourself by the fact that my stage-managed sequestration was invalid.  This is tantamount to a confession that you are indeed one of the low-life maggots in the Crime Protection Syndicate.  And, again, contrary to what you suggest, I have no remedy in the Court of Session because of the aforementioned corrupt reprobates. I have exposed almost every instance of corruption since 1989 in chronological order to the House of Lords.  If the corruption extends to the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Office in the Lords, I will lodge the chronological submissions with the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.   In the meantime, I must seek answers from all you cretins for your continued victimisation of me and my family, and for your intransigent political and criminal corruption.

I must reiterate, therefore, the terms of previous letters until you respond in a fitting manner:

Pretending for the moment that I was made bankrupt following a legitimate, legal process, it would not diminish my radical right of interest in my case and in my family home.  And it would not detract from the fact that – given Graham Ritchie the benefit of the doubt for the moment that he was appointed trustee following a legitimate legal process – he has been guilty of gross negligence, working contrary to the best interests of both the so-called debtor and creditor because I, the so-called debtor, am no longer, by his or your perverse reckoning entitled to receive a single copper coin from my "estate" due to Graham Ritchie's refusal to accept the offer of payment made by a third party at 2.00pm on Tuesday, 9 April 1995.  When the time comes to sue, I am sure that, even a man with Graham Ritchie's debase morals and ill-earned wealth, will have great difficulty in meeting the expected enormous costs which will be awarded in my favour against him for his gross negligence, causing unreasonable distress to me and my family.

I now refer you to my letter of 7 June 1999. Since you failed to address all the points I raised, I reiterate the terms below and urge you to respond accordingly and desist from your continual, contemptuous maladministration.

I have just received a letter dated 27 May 1999 from the hound from hell, Graham Ritchie, praying mantis with the Ernst & Young Gang, Chartered Racketeers, informing me that you have audited his accounts of extortion covering the period from 27 November 1992 to 27 May 1993, with the account closing with a balance of £224.31 and his pretended remuneration at £1,800 (exclusive of VAT). Section 53(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 prescribes: "Within 2 weeks after the end of an accounting period, the permanent trustee shall in respect of that period submit to the commissioners or, if there are no commissioners, to the Accountant in Bankruptcy:- (a) his accounts of his intromission … and (b) a claim for the outlays reasonably incurred by him and a claim for remuneration."

Apart from the account of intromission being by no stretch of the imagination "reasonably incurred", in that there are no creditors, yet he still sees fit to send ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended creditor, inducing the enormous expense of £2,024.31, his claim is SIX YEARS outwith the time-bar period.   As in so many of his previous accounts, as hereinafter mentioned, his claims, and your determinations, are illegal, tantamount to extortion.

The other claims in his letter of 27 May 1999 are equally erroneous.   His claim for the period covering 28 May 1993 to 25 November 1993 closed with a balance of £224.31 with remuneration fixed at £360 (exclusive of VAT).  Apart from the account of intromission again being by no stretch of the imagination "reasonably incurred", in that there are no creditors, he still sees fit to send ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended creditor, inducing the enormous expense of £584.31 – and, on this occasion, his claim was FIVE-AND-A-HALF YEARS outwith the time-bar period.

His claim for the period covering 26 November 1993 to 26 May 1994 closed with a balance of £Nil with remuneration fixed at £440 (exclusive of VAT).  Apart from the account of intromission once again being by no stretch of the imagination "reasonably incurred", in that there are no creditors, he still sees fit to send ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended creditor, inducing no expenses on that occasion, but extortionate expenses on other occasions induced the enormous expenses of £440 – and this time, his claim was FIVE YEARS outwith the time-bar period.

His claim for the period covering 27 May 1994 to 24 November 1993 closed with a balance of £465.74 with remuneration fixed at £2,160 (exclusive of VAT).  Apart from the account of intromission once again being by no stretch of the imagination "reasonably incurred", in that there are no creditors, he still sees fit to send ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended creditor, inducing no expenses on that occasion, but extortionate expenses on other occasions induced the enormous expenses of £2,625.74 – and, on this occasion, his claim was FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS outwith the time-bar period.

His claim for the period covering 24 May 1998 to 23 November 1998 was the most crass act of embezzlement to date [apart from his downright disregard and contempt of Lord Philip's ruling on the first day of the mistermed, "Proof" hearing in Court 14 of the Court of Session on Thursday, 26 November 1998].  His (illegal) appointment as trustee was discontinued due to the fact the discharge date of the (illegally stage-managed) sequestration took effect on 27 November 1997. His claim closed with a balance of £2,201.85 with remuneration fixed at £553 (exclusive of VAT).  The disparity of the amounts claimed by Graham Ritchie for the same six-month periods for sending ONE circular to one phoney, pretended creditor are astronomic and so beyond comprehension that they exceed the bounds of criminality. And, again, by no stretch of the imagination could the account of intromission be deemed "reasonably incurred", in that there are no creditors, but he still saw fit to send ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended creditor, inducing the enormous expense of £2,754.85.  Notwithstanding, the period covering his claim began SIX MONTHS after the date that the stage-managed sequestration and invalid deferment of the discharge date had finally concluded.

I now return to my letter to you of 6 March 1999, for which you have failed to respond.  The following is a copy of that letter to assist you in addressing fittingly all the points I raised.

I refer you to the so-called Diet of "Proof" presided over by Lord Philip in Court 14 of the Court of Session on Thursday, 26 November 1998, and was adjourned [until Wednesday, 23 June 1999, and would advise that I sent some of the following details to Lord Philip on 27 November 1998 together with a copy of the chronology of the entire history of the case, which also contains my appeal to the House of Lords.  I sent it to Lord Philip to give him the opportunity to acquaint himself with the facts surrounding the case and expose the low-life maggots in our legal system's Crime Protection Syndicate.   All these facts were swept under the carpet as the legal pantomime tinkered around the periphery of the case, waffling about circumstances that existed only in the backwaters of their polluted imagination, but were not remotely connected with the case.

I informed Lord Philip, that I had never in my life witnessed such "legal" posturing with advocates dabbling with such exhaustively disconnected, aimless, evasive and repetitive inanity, from both advocates, E W Robertson and Gail Joughin, particularly that Son-of-a-Robber, Robertson for the pursuer.  They had a greater problem avoiding the essence of the case for hours on end than they would had they actually debated it, because the facts, as laid out in the terms of my chronology, a copy with which Lord Philip was provided, are so straightforward it would be extremely difficult to deny I had an infallible case.  What took place was not a legitimate "Proof" hearing, but a lynching.

It was brought to my attention that E W Robertson, in summing up the case for the Pursuer on Friday, 11 February 2000, had the colossal gall to suggest that all aspects of the case should be considered before a final decision is made, which Lord Philip referred to in his Opinion.  This is rich indeed in the light of the fact that the Son of a Robber, E W Robertson, went to great lengths to prevent any part of my case from being considered when on 7 May 1997 he successfully had a motion passed in court by the colluding Temporary Lord Ordinary T Gordon Coutts QC to suppress the entire 14,000 plus words of my condescendence and have it deemed irrelevant et separatim lacking in specification.   As mentioned hereinbefore, E W Robertson painstakingly avoided the very essence of the case as he fumbled aimlessly around circumstances that existed only in the backwaters of his own imagination.

The endless stream of lies, fudges and slanders, pouring out both advocates' crude, odious, repulsive language, flowed with Lord Philip's knowledge, consent, complicity and applause, and he totally ignored Section 40(2) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.

One of the major instances of perjury came from Maureen Leslie, Graham Ritchie's assistant in the Ernst & Young Gang.   Where on earth did she conjure up in her evidence in court a debt by me for £750.00 for arrears in poll tax, in addition to the would-be "principal sum" – the sum that was the formal cause of creating the stage-managed, pretended bankruptcy in the first place?  This was the first time the £750 fallacious figure had been thrown into the arena.

The fact of the matter is that the "principal sum" of £968.00 was the sum total of the alleged debt for which I was illegally made bankrupt.  And the alleged debt arose entirely from the CCRO, Ian M Rogers' extravagant legal costs for hiring as a mouthpiece the former advocate and newly appointed youngest judge in Britain, Robert Reed.  However, Lord Sandy Philip is as corrupt as Lord Big AL Johnston, Lord Eassie, Temporary Lord Ordinary Gogs Coutts, Sheriff Pedro McNeill, Sheriff Andy Bell, Sheriff Ricky Scott, Sheriff Got-the-Public-over-a-Barrel Fraudulent Farrell, the former Accountant in Bankruptcy, Herr Geordie Kerr, Graham CockRoachie of the Ernst & Young Gang, and all you other low-life maggots in the extended Scottish legal profession's Crime Protection Syndicate, because Lord Philip ignored all the facts of the case, including the fact that Maureen Leslie is a lying reprobate who perjured herself in court with impunity.

I was the only person in Court 14 of the Court of Session on 26 & 27 November 1998 who knew the entire relevant details of the case and therefore the only person who could have shed some light on the matters at hand, yet I was the one person who was stymied from clarifying the crux of the entire case.  What is more, the agent for the second defender/my wife sinisterly did not dispute the convenient lie about the additional phoney debt of £750.00 that was conjured up by Maureen Leslie, supposedly in respect of poll tax arrears.  Is Lord Philip so stupid or so corrupt that he does not understand the frustration of having to listen to people making up convenient scenarios that have no bearing on the truth?  And these lies were not even disputed by the only defence agent (i.e., Gail Joughin) who was permitted to speak, because she knew little or nothing about the case, and was collaborating with the opposition.

It was also frustrating to listen to E W Robertson, advocate for the pursuer, leading Maureen Leslie by the nose and getting her to mention the occasions on which she and the Accountant in Bankruptcy decided that I had committed an offence under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 for not complying with the pretended trustee's demands to provide a list of assets and liabilities without reasonable excuse, only to then sinisterly drop the subject without taking it to its conclusion.  The implication that would be inferred from that is that I was in fact guilty of not complying with the pretended trustee's demands to provide a list of assets and liabilities without reasonable excuse.  The fact of the matter is that I was convicted and fined £100.00 in a railroaded "Trial-by-Ambush" in the criminal court by Sheriff Richard John Dinwoodie Scott on 15 November 1995 for not complying with all the foregoing lawlessness, but after brief deliberations in the High Court of Appeal on 6 December 1996, before the former Lord Justice-Clerk Ross and Lords Morison and Cowie, I was disencumbered of the guilty verdict. LINK  After their deliberations, Lord Ross told me: "The Sheriff (Richard John Dinwoodie Scott) was wrong for not allowing me the opportunity at my trial to challenge the validity of the sequestration, therefore the conviction is quashed and the appeal upheld."

The implication of this decision is considerable and ought to have had knock-on effects for the civil case, given that it has now been officially accepted that I have, to say the very least, a "reasonable excuse for not delivering to the interim trustee a list of assets and liabilities".  Without considering the political corruption that abounded, this decision alone should have had the efficacy to reverse all the preceding injustices and to have the desired effect on subsequent preliminary examinations and in the "Proof" hearing itself.  The whole caboodle should have been called to a halt.

Incidentally, on two occasions on the week preceding the so-called Diet of "Proof", Graham Ritchie's law agents informed me they were lodging late a third and fourth Inventory of Productions in the process and asked me if I consented.  I informed them that I most certainly did not consent, but, regardless of my opposition, they were all used at the so-called Diet of "Proof" anyway.  I informed Lord Philip about this, asking him if he could explain how even this little piece of skulduggery was allowed, but apparently, I only existed when I was to be referred to in far less than complimentary terms; certainly not for my exemplary behaviour in exposing all the aforementioned wig-lice vermin and other low-life creatures.

I also told Lord Philip that it was incumbent on him to consider my submitted defence and chronology when arriving at his decision, otherwise he would be rubber-stamping all the foregoing corruption, drawing him into the quagmire along with all the other low-life maggots in the extended legal profession's Crime Protection Syndicate who have made me and my family victims of their depraved disposition.  Copies of the chronology/statement of facts were sent to the corrupt agents of both my wife and Graham BankRichie.

I now refer you to my letters of 19 September, 16 August, 15 June and 13 March 1998, for which, due to your maladministration and criminal tendencies, have thus far refused to address all the points I raised.  I repeat them below to assist you in responding in a satisfactory manner now.

Keeping in mind the fact that the discharge date of the bogus bankruptcy period, after the 2-year deferment expired, was 27 November 1997, I received a letter dated 20 July 1998 from Graham CockRoachie, the hound from hell with the Ernst & Young Gang, which stated: "The Accountant in Bankruptcy has examined and audited the account of intromission of Graham Ritchie as permanent trustee covering the period from '24 November 1997 to 23 May 1998' (my emphasis). The account closes with a balance of £11,349.62 due to the trustee. The Accountant fixes the trustee's remuneration for the aforementioned period at £877.50 (exclusive of VAT) and outlays at £10,031.26."

You will notice, even taking into consideration all the earlier skulduggery, that all but 3 days of this spurious accounting period was outwith the "official" period of the bankruptcy.  This is proof positive of you and the CockRoachie's attempts to extort.  On top of that, even if the accounting period was wholly within the "official" bankruptcy period, the hound from hell has freely admitted that there is only one known creditor (as far as he is concerned), so how can his outlays and remuneration amount to "11,349.62 to send ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended creditor?  In actual fact, the hound from hell has been invited to name the one, single, solitary, phoney, pretended creditor, but could only come up with a substitute for Ian M Rogers who could never claim to be a creditor.  But not one individual person was named as the would-be substitute for the replacement (false) creditor. That aside, one would not have to be a mathematical genius to recognise that it does not cost £11,349.62 to send ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended creditor.

Finally, the fact that you, the Accountant in Bankruptcy, have "examined" the hound from hell's account of intromission, and have taken the decision to "audit" it, makes you an accomplice to Ritchie the Rogue's criminal activity.  It is incumbent on you, therefore, to see that the low-life maggot is taken to task and your decision to audit his account of intromission is reversed.

I now reiterate the terms of my letter dated 20 June 1998 to enable you to address all the points I raised:

I received a letter dated 20 February 1998 from the Ernst & Young Gang, Chartered Racketeers, Ten George Street, Edinburgh EH2 2DZ, informing me that, "the Accountant in Bankruptcy has examined and audited the Account of intromission of Dugal H Beedie, Esq., CA as Permanent Trustee covering the period from 26 May 1995 to 23 November 1995," and that you, the Accountant in Bankruptcy, "fixed the "phoney, pretended) Trustee's remuneration at £1,500 plus VAT of £262.50 and outlays at "Nil, and that you "examined and audited the Account of intromission of Dugal H Beedie, Esq., CA as Permanent Trustee covering the period 24 November 1995 to 23 May 1996", and that you "fixed the (phoney, pretended) Trustee's remuneration at £540 plus VAT of £94.50 and outlays at £Nil".

I thought all possible modes of extortion had been exhausted, but evidently not.  Now the oracle is being well and truly worked.  Which all begs the following questions: (a) who the f*** is Dugal H Beedie, Esq.' CA?; (b) who the f***'s estate is he supposedly the permanent trustee of?; and (c) what the f*** has this got to do with me?   [Ed ~ The same could now be asked of J S S Graham] I have never even heard of this character [nor of J S S Graham].   I must say, you can be quite infuriating at times.  But, of course, that is the idea, is it not?

Since you have now really scraped the bottom of the barrel, I feel I must refer you to my letters of 1 January 1998; 29 and 9 November; and the 13 October 1997; to which you have thus far failed to respond adequately.   I reiterate the terms below so you can address all the points I raised:

"Thank you for your letter of 26 September 1997.

"However, nothing in your letter alters the essential facts of the position that, contrary to your self-delusion, I was NOT sequestrated by the court following the due process of law; I was sequestrated through an invalid, stage-managed process by low-life maggots in the Scottish legal system's covin's Crime Protection Syndicate.  Since you are willingly assisting the low-life maggots, you are guilty of acquiescence, just as I have consistently illustrated in the past and will continue to illustrate in the future.

"I thought you might like to know that another crucial factor recently came to light, further cementing my impeccable case.  Not only was the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987 invalid in Scotland from the outset; and that I was made bankrupt through an illicit process by politically and criminally corrupt sheriffs, Andrew M Bell and Peter G B McNeill – the latter who railroaded the stage-managed bankruptcy through the court while I had an appeal lying in the Court of Session against a decision by the former sheriff, sent there by the Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson QC, pursuant to Section 29(2) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987; and that it was railroaded through without allowing me the opportunity to ‘show cause why sequestration should not be awarded', contrary to Section 12(2) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985; and that the vital proviso in relation to the Oath by Creditor was not adhered to, contrary to Section 11(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985; and that on 5 October 1995 Sheriff Peter G B McNeill railroaded the deferment of the discharge date of the bankruptcy through the court for a period of 2 years from and after 27 November 1995 in my absence and without intimation; and that Ritchie the Rogue applied for a deferment of the discharge date (i.e., 9 May 1991) ‘after' a third party offered to pay the phoney, pretended debt, but was refused by the hound from hell's agents so that they could all continue to keep the dripping roast oozing forth on the gravy train, claiming extortionate outlays and remuneration from the public purse; but the deferment of the discharge date was invalid for yet another conclusive reason:

"That is to say, my case in the Sheriff Court, exposing the invalidity of the sequestration, was remitted to the Court of Session on Wednesday, 12 April 1995, but the application for the deferment of the discharge date was not lodged in the Court of Session, but was lodged in the Sheriff Court, four-and-a-half months ‘after' my case was remitted to the Court of Session. Of course, the deferment, like the bankruptcy proceedings three years earlier, was also railroaded through the Sheriff Court on a fast track by Sheriff Peter G B McNeill without permitting me the opportunity to submit a defence in opposition, or, on the latter occasion, to even appear in court.

"The all-important factor is, however, according to Lord Trayner's Latin Maxims: ‘Actor debet sequi forum rei:- "A pursuer raising an action against his debtor or obligant, must do so before the forum or court to the jurisdiction of which the defender is subject at the time.   The rationale of this rule is obvious; for if the defender be outwith the jurisdiction of the Court before which he has been cited, he is not bound, and cannot be compelled to answer before that Court; and any decree of that Court will be valueless, there being no way of enforcing it!"'

"So not only was the stage-managed bankruptcy railroaded through the court on a fast track by a politically corrupt process, but the deferment of the discharge date was railroaded through the ‘wrong' court on a fast track, making the decree valueless, ‘there being no way of enforcing it'!

"I must therefore advise you that my complaints are certainly not without foundation because I am simply not a bankrupt.   The pretended sequestration resulted from a stage-managed, illicit process and was railroaded through the cash-and-carry Sheriff Kangaroo Court by a politically and criminally corrupt sheriff Peter G B McNeill, one of the low-life maggots in the legal profession's Crime Protection Syndicate.

"Incidentally, I received a letter from Graham Ritchie dated 25 September 1997, enclosing, what he called, ‘a copy of the list of creditors'. This list contained ONE false creditor: the erstwhile Lothian Regional Council. I have repeatedly informed him that I am not due one copper coin to Lothian Regional Council for nonpayment of the former Community Charge/Poll Tax, nor for anything else for that matter.  My stage-managed, railroaded sequestration resulted from the underhanded pursuits of one individual, Ian M Rogers, to enforce me to pay for his extravagant legal fees after he welched on his advocate. His advocate was Robert Reed, now the youngest person in Britain to be elevated to the bench.  However, the ongoing corrupt scenario is referred to hereinafter so I will not dwell on it at this point, but I must stress that Graham Ritchie's extortionate accounts of intromission for remuneration and outlays for sending ONE circular to ONE phoney pretended creditor is proof positive that the man is a contemptible thief and fraudster.

"So I must refer you once again to my letters of 22 September; 25 & 4 August; 6 July; 9 June; 30 May; and 24 march 1997; in order that you might address all the points I raised.  To jog your memory I will repeat their terms in full below to assist you to respond accordingly:

"'Thank you for your letter of 11 March 1997 re the above invalid sequestration.   It is now patently clear that you are a willing collaborator in the extortion.

"'I will first respond to the unsound points you raised in your letter before addressing the more important issue of the culpability of your latest felony, as revealed in a letter dated 17 March by your collaborator in the covin's Crime Protection Syndicate, that other limb of Satan, Graham CockRoachie.  He brought it to my attention that you sanctioned further embezzlement by way of auditing a criminal account of intromission, and you fixed, in my absence and without intimation, an amount of remuneration and outlays payable to that Chartered Racketeering Mobster with the Ernst & Young Gang.

"'That pathetic, lying thief, in his role as the phoney, pretended trustee of my estate, so-called, thinks he can conceal his corruption in law books, but he will ultimately have to face up to the fact that he was appointed interim trustee by a cash-and-carry, kangaroo court, and that law books do not sanction corruption.  No one can hide behind the Pontius Pilate pretence that one is only doing one's job.  Every individual must hold himself responsible for doing the right thing.  You, of course, are already aware that the bankruptcy derived from a stage-managed process in which I was gagged and illegally prevented from "showing cause why sequestration should not be awarded", and are therefore guilty of acquiescence.

"'Which brings us now to your letter.  First, in the second paragraph you take responsibility for conveniently altering the section under which expenses are fixed.  You changed it from Section 63 to Section 53, but you did not confess whether this inconceivable error resulted from the actions of an incompetent idiot or from deep-rooted skulduggery.  You try to mitigate the circumstances by suggesting it was but a "simple error". [But this was not the first time the selfsame error occurred, as mentioned hereinafter at paragraph 6 on page 11.]

"'Nonetheless, the very nature of your job demands that you are perfectly well aware of the exact terms of the section under which expenses are fixed. Section 63 relates precisely to the powers of a sheriff to decide on expenses, but Section 53(1b) does not; that section involves the Accountant in Bankruptcy.  In my letter of 14 November 1996, I asked you to name the sheriff who involved himself in the murky corruption.   It was only then you decided to move the goalposts and change the section from 63 to 53.

"'What is more, even if this was just another run-of-the-mill legal process, Section 53 would not be sufficient to exact remuneration because it states at 53(1b) that "outlays must be reasonably incurred". Not by any stretch of the imagination could Robber Ritchie claim that he incurred outlays reasonably.  The hellhound's expenses were self-inflicted because of the following reasons:

Unbeknown to me at the time, a third party offered to pay the phoney, pretended debt to the bogus creditor, but Robber Ritchie accrued still further unnecessary expenses and added another coach on to the gravy train.
As I informed you in my letter of 7 February 1997, I told Robber Ritchie of my financial situation on 2 February 1993 when I referred him to my soiled underwear, but assured him there was no way he would lay his filthy hands on them. Between that and the information he received from my wife's solicitors, he had a comprehensive insight into the situation, but sent out wasteful circulars regardless, keeping the dripping roast exuding profusely, running up further unnecessary expenses.
Had agents for Ritchie the Rogue not put forward a motion to Sheriff Isobel Anne Poole on 12 April 1995 to remit the case to the Court of Session, prolonging the action and running up further unnecessary expenses in the process, the case would have been dispensed with long ago and the Rogue would not have embroiled you in civil and criminal disorder; and
In any event, as mentioned in my letter of 7 February 1997, I am not obliged to comply with Robber Ritchie's requests to provide him with a list of assets and liabilities because I won my appeal in the High Court of Justiciary on 6 December 1996 … [as mentioned hereinbefore]. LINK  Interestingly, this was the most productive decision taken in the courts to date, yet the only response you can offer (in your 5th paragraph) is: "I note the position regarding your successful Appeal in the High Court of Justiciary in December 1996." I must say, it was very magnanimous of you to "note" the position.

"'Needless to say, this proves you are meekly casting yourself into slavery by the other looting limbs of Satan in the corrupt covin that operates outside the law.  Does guilt in numbers somehow appease the consciences in our legal system's Crime Protection Syndicate? The Nazi Party in Germany seemed to be of a similar mind.

"'Secondly' in your third paragraph you refer to the ruling of Sheriff Isobel Anne Poole in the Sheriff Court on 12 April 1995 and go on to suggest that her decision would not relate to the pretended permanent trustee's remuneration, which is a separate matter. LINK  How can you be so arrogant as to second-guess the reasons for a sheriff's decision?  Indeed, how can you possibly claim that it is a separate matter?  It is a ludicrous suggestion.   Each and every minor detail in this ongoing saga is inseparable because they are all intrinsic one to the other.  So too is the ruling in the appeal in the High Court of Justiciary.   And so is "Actor debet sequi forum rei".  So when I win my case in the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords, your collusion with the Rogue in fixing his account of intromission is going to appear all the more criminally insane.

"'Thirdly, in your fourth paragraph, you say: "The Accountant in Bankruptcy is … unable to comment on matters relating to the judiciary which are outwith his remit."  You seem to fudge any issue you are incapable of answering.  For instance, in your letter of 22 November 1996, at the fifth paragraph, you mentioned that you presumed I would have availed myself of the opportunity at the time of my [railroaded] sequestration to show cause why it should not be awarded.  It would appear that you find it proper to refer to bits and pieces of the matters relating to the judiciary when it suits you, irrespective of how misconstrued your reference is, but it becomes forbidden fruit, so to speak, when you realise that the sequestration was not conducted in a proper fashion, but illegally railroaded through on a fast track without permitting me the opportunity to show cause why sequestration should not be awarded, contrary to Section 12(2) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.  Sheriff Peter G B McNeill was so eager to railroad the sequestration through he even overlooked the fact that Section 11(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 an Oath by Creditor must be sworn by the (phoney, pretended) creditor before a person entitled to administer the oath, for example, a Notary Public or a Justice of the Peace. Sheriff McNeill failed to ensure that this crucial proviso was adhered to and the oath was not signed.

"'If someone in higher places was instructing Sheriff McNeill, and for that matter, Sheriff Andy Bell before him, and Sheriff Ricky Scott after him, to turn our courtrooms into chambers of depravity, I cannot, with the best will in the world find any forgiveness in me because, as mentioned hereinbefore, every individual must hold himself responsible for his own actions, and for doing the right thing.

"'Fourthly, in your sixth paragraph you relate to the Community Charge as though it was valid in Scotland.   It simply was nothing of the kind!  There is no argument about it.  The legislation was illegal pursuant to Article XVIII of the Union With Scotland Act 1706/Treaty of Union 1707. LINK   I do not need a seal of approval from any court, the Lord Advocate, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Prime Minister, or from any parliamentary dogma to endorse that fact.  Constitutional law unequivocally invalidated the Community Charge/Poll Tax.  It is not open to conjectural or selective interpretation from any quarter.

"'I suggest, therefore, that you put away your law books and check the unequivocal terms of the 1706/1707Act for yourself and desist from concealing your corruption in discriminatory books along with all the other misfits in the Scottish legal system's covin's Crime Protection Syndicate.

"'Last, even if the Community Charge/Poll Tax had been legal in Scotland, most of your statements in your sixth paragraph does not concern my situation.  You seem to be under the illusion that my pretended debt to Ian M Rogers, CCRO, resulted from Community Charge arrears.  This is simply not the case.  The pretended debt arose when I lost an appeal in the Sheriff Court against an earlier decision by Ian M Rogers when he insisted on including my name in his illegal register for liability to pay Community Charge/Poll Tax.   The crux of the matter is that I was held liable for extravagant expenses for Rogers' advocate, Robert Reed, as mentioned hereinbefore, who tried laboriously in court to justify the CCRO's earlier decision, waffling on about fishing rights and other nonsensical, unrelated matters of, what were supposed to be, matters of persuasion or supportive arguments.  I will not bore you with the details, but Sheriff Bell made an apocryphal interpretation of the law, comprising preparatory measures in line with political subservience.  In doing this, he acted ultra vires, or beyond his legal powers.  He must have been corrupted while making avizandum because he made a breathtaking U-turn from his averments in court with respect to the Act of Union, bringing our entire justice system into disrepute.

"'So you see, the pretended debt was to pay for a hired mouthpiece to try and explain away Ian M Rogers own earlier incomprehensible decision, not for any arrears in of Poll Tax [contrary to what the perjurer from the Ernst & Young Gang, Maureen Leslie claimed at the so-called Diet of "Proof" in the Court of Session].

"'In accordance with Section 29(2) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987, I let my appeal lie to the Court of Session, but to this day has still not been heard.  On that account, the extravagant expenses of Ian M Rogers', which contributed to the stage management of my railroaded sequestration and the gravy train steering aimlessly out of control without brakes, should not have been an issue until my appeal ran its full course.  The Sheriff Court appeal was only an interim tribunal.   It was certainly not mea culpa (through my fault) that my appeal was not heard in the Court of Session; that was entirely the fault of the court.  Of course, it cannot now be heard under legislation that, even had it been valid to begin with, has been proscribed by law and so no longer exists.  The all-important factor is that the courts and Parliament in effect ran away from my appeal so it must be accepted that I would have won it; or at least would not have lost it.

"'There are umpteen reasons that make my case infallible, all of which the Rogue is aware because I provided him with those reasons, beginning in early 1992. The reasons are also contained in my averments in the Final Record of the Cause.  But, for your part, and contrary to your assumptions, the job of the Community Charges Registration Officer was made redundant years ago, 5 April 1993 to be precise, with Ian M Rogers leaving the Former Lothian Regional Council. LINK    Consequently, Robber Ritchie is acting not on behalf of a creditor, as there is no successor employee in a redundant job, but on behalf of himself and the other gravy train riders, in stark contravention of, inter alia, Section 39(1a), (2a) & (2d), (4a), (4bi & ii) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.  It has reached such farcical proportions that Bitchy Graham CockRoachie still seems obsessed with continuing his warped agenda.

"'Now I will address the other matter. In his letter dated 17 March 1997.  Robber Ritchie informs me that you are still in cahoots with the hellhound, fixing his outlays and remuneration willy nilly, despite his increasing criminal aspirations. I have long found exceedingly repugnant people's zeal for acquiring wealth, but it is infinitely worse when it is the criminal zeal of "citizens-above-suspicion".

"'I therefore urge you to consider two alternative courses of action: either hold yourself responsible for doing the right thing and tell Graham BankRichie you will no longer be his partner in crime, or resign from your post and let someone else do his dirty work for him.'"

Depending on how corrupt you are, it will be interesting to see how you respond to the fact that, on sixteen separate occasions Ritchie the Rogue has submitted his self-inflicted accounts of intromission to you when it was outwith the two-week time limit laid down by Section 53(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985!

I will now go back a few years and reiterate some details that appeared in earlier letters.  Some of the details may seem familiar; however, they include other instances of you acquiescing with the CockRoach in auditing other erroneous accounts of intromission of his.

In a letter dated 8 November 1996 from John Gordon Stirling, Assistant Correspondence Officer in the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, he let it be known that he was under the misapprehension that the despicable, pretended trustee, Graham Ritchie's "accounts of intromission covering the period 25 November 1994 to 25 May 1995 were audited, and his fee fixed by the Accountant in Bankruptcy in accordance with the requirements placed on him by Section 63 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985."  But Section 63, as mentioned hereinbefore at paragraph 5 on page 9, relates entirely to determinations by a sheriff, unless the sheriff chooses to remit the case to the Court of Session. … Thus, you, the Accountant in Bankruptcy audited and fixed Bitchy Graham BankRitchie's accounts under Section 63 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 unlawfully because you had absolutely no authority under that section – or any other for that matter – to do so.

On 14 November 1996, I wrote to John Gordon Stolen Sterling, asking him which sheriff was involved under Section 63 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 in having outlays and remuneration fixed in favour of Ritchie the Rogue, in my absence and without intimation. This was not even taking into account "Actor debet sequi forum rei".

Stolen Sterling replied to my letter on 22 November 1996 and changed the goalposts with regard to Section 63 [just as he would in his letter of 11 March 1997].  Given that I had found him out about the CockRoachie's "accounts covering the period 25 November 1994 to 25 May 1985 being audited, and his fee fixed by the strong>Accountant in Bankruptcy in accordance with the requirements placed on him by [supposedly] Section 63 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985", an mentioned above, and had asked him the name of the sheriff involved, Stolen Sterling replied: "I regret that my previous letter incorrectly stated that the Permanent Trustee's fees etc had been fixed in accordance with Section 63 of the 1985 Act: the reference should, of course, have been Section 53 of the Act."

It is inconceivable that a professional Assistant Correspondence Officer in the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy could make such a monumental blunder as to quote the wrong section of an Act that is basically the tools of his trade, and on which his entire working life is dependent.  But for this particular blunder, it was very convenient for him to admit fault and change the goalposts.  I do not suppose he would have expected me to check up the pertinent legislation and find him out to be a "chancer".

However, changing the goalposts just leant towards creating another bloomer because Section 53(1) states: "Within 2 weeks after the end of the accounting period, the permanent trustee shall in respect of that period submit … to the Accountant in Bankruptcy (a) his accounts of his intromission … and (b) a claim for the outlays reasonably incurred by him and for his remuneration."  Apart from Graham CockRoachie's outlays and remuneration of £1,950.00 for the period covering 25 November 1994 to 25 May 1995 being by no stretch of the imagination reasonably incurred, for sending ONE circular to ONE single, solitary, phoney, nonexistent, pretended creditor, the first time he informed me he had submitted his account of intromission to the Accountant in Bankruptcy was 7 October 1996, a full sixteen months outwith the 2-week time-bar period stipulated by Section 53 of the 1985 Act.

Furthermore, on 17 March 1997, Robber Ritchie sent me a letter informing me that in accordance with, again, Section 53(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, his account of intromission had once again been audited by the Accountant in Bankruptcy, who, at the same time, issued his determination, fixing the amount of outlays and remuneration payable to Graham CockRoachie for his work as permanent trustee at £1,113.50, covering the period from 24 May 1996 to 23 November 1996, for sending ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended, nonexistent creditor, and taking into account the fact that I was in the middle of a process in the Court of Session challenging the validity of the sequestration, or, rather, demonstrating its invalidity, Ritchie the Rogue and the Accountant in Bankruptcy will ultimately look even more stupid and corrupt than they already do.

Similar to what was mentioned about Robber Ritchie's first claim for outlays and remuneration, he was again time-barred from submitting his claim under Section 53(1) of the 1985 Act, pursuant to the 2-week stipulation. And, apart from him being a fraudster, his outlays and remuneration of £1,113.50 was by no stretch of the imagination reasonably incurred, for the reasons previously mentioned, his accounting period, which is claimed to cover the period from 24 May 1996 to 23 November 1996, was almost four months outwith the 2-week time-bar period stipulated by Section 53(1) of the 1985 Act, because, as mentioned above, the first time the Rogue informed me he had submitted this latest account of intromission to the Accountant in Bankruptcy was in his letter dated 17 March 1997.

Like a dog returning to its vomit, the hound from hell sent me another letter on 30 July 1997, stating: "In accordance with s.53 (1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 I have submitted my account of intromission to the Accountant in Bankruptcy together with a claim for my remuneration and outlays … covering the period 24 November 1996 to 23 May 1997. … The Accountant fixes the trustee's remuneration for the aforementioned period at £686.00 (exclusive of VAT) and outlays at £550.81."  Since I won my appeal in the High Court of Justiciary on 6 December 1996 LINK  against the conviction of failing without reasonable excuse to deliver to the interim trustee a list of assets and liabilities, when it was held by the former Lord Justice-Clerk Ross and Lords Morison and Cowie that Sheriff Scott was wrong for refusing to allow me the opportunity to challenge the validity of the sequestration during my trial on 15 November 1995 LINK, thereby disembarrassing me of the conviction and fine, I was simultaneously released from the requirement of complying with the would-be trustee, Bitchie Graham CockRoachie, it must be asked why Robber Ritchie was still trying to embezzle outlays and remuneration for sending ONE circular to ONE phoney, pretended nonexistent creditor.

However, even though the hound from hell had earlier submitted accounts of intromission that were time-barred by sixteen months and almost four months respectively, this latest attempt to extort was only about three weeks outwith the 2-week time limit stipulated by Section 53(1) of the 1985 Act; but it was time-barred nevertheless!  Let us not forget the fact that the Rogue's outlays and remuneration of £1,236.81 were by no stretch of the imagination reasonably incurred, as is repeatedly mentioned hereinbefore.  But why let laws, justice, decency and victims get in the way of a good gerrymandering scam and deceitful heist?  It has never bothered the low-life maggots in the Scottish legal system's Crime Protection Syndicate in the past!

Regardless of the fact that I had appealed against all 13 of the Accountant in Bankruptcy's decisions to audit and award the pursuer expenses and remuneration – all outwith the time-bar period – I appealed for the 14th time against the latest round.  For the first time the appeal was given a hearing date by the Sheriff Court.   All previous 13 were sinisterly not permitted a hearing.  Mr William Holligan, a partner with the much maligned and malevolent law firm, Brodies, Writers to the Syndicate (the Crime Protection Syndicate, that is) represented the Accountant in Bankruptcy.  He brought a motion before Sheriff Farrell to prevent my submissions going to probation.   It all seems so familiar.  It is the time-honoured ruse, used by the legal profession to prevent an infallible case going to probation.   If the appeal could embarrass members of the legal profession and expose deep-rooted skulduggery, there is a dual reason for preventing it being heard, contrary to natural justice and the public interest.

Sheriff (Got-the-Public-over-a-Barrel) Fraudulent Farrell listened to Mr Holligan going on at great length, but saying next to nothing of any relevance or import.  In fact, the only two points he raised of any substance turned on their own merits and he shot himself in the foot, as it were, cementing my infallible case. He said: "Had Mr Burns appealed against earlier accounts of intromission a whole different mechanism would apply." Mr Holligan was actually handing me the case on a plate by making this averment because, as I informed Sheriff Farrell in court, I had appealed against each and every one of the previous 13 accounts of intromission, but sinister forces in the Sheriff Court would not allow me a hearing, smashing every fructifying principle of equity and justice.  The lodging of my appeal against this latest round of accounts of intromission went through the exact same procedure as all the others, so any latent insinuation to the contrary would be erroneous in the extreme.   Be that as it may, Mr Holligan inadvertently handed me the case on a plate by his own admission that a whole different mechanism applies in my case, defeating his entire, shallow submissions – or it ought to have done.

Mr Holligan also used as a supportive argument or as a matter of persuasion the case of Tinlin -v- The Accountant in Bankruptcy before Sheriff MacPhail QC in the Scots Law Times dated 14 December 1998, Page 59, between sections J & K.  The significant part of Sheriff MacPhail's decision in that case was that "The noter's dissatisfaction with the way his bankruptcy has been administered, and in the efficient administration of the estate, are no doubt of concern to him personally, but he has not been able to show that anything has been done to his disadvantage."  I, on the other hand, informed Sheriff Farrell that I had shown the court a catalogue of things that have been done to my disadvantage.  This should have further cemented my infallible case.

It must be asked, therefore: "Why did Sheriff Farrell sinisterly ignore these two crucial points, along with all my other submissions?"  The process of the case ran contrary to the pretence contained in Sheriff Farrell's written decision to uphold Mr Holligan's motion, and contrary to Articles 6 and 8 of the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.  Of course, had Sheriff (Scraping-the-Bottom-of-the-Barrel) Fraudulent Farrell refused Mr Holligan's case and adhered to right reason, allowing my infallible appeal to go to probation, it would have opened up another can of worms, making Lord Philip's decision in the Court of Session look all the more capricious and silly.

In a letter date 31 July 2000, Sheriff Clerk Depute, G W McIlwain, informed me: "I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 29 July 2000 regarding the above appeal, and have to advise you that in terms of section 53(6)(b) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 the ‘decisions of the Sheriff in such an appeal shall be final'.  There is therefore no appeal available in terms of the statute."  This statement is not only misleading, it is criminal and below contempt because the above named section relates strictly to a person's right to appeal to a sheriff and contains absolutely nothing about a person's right to appeal against the decision of a sheriff thereafter.

On hindsight, I have no idea why I was even asked to participate in Sheriff Farrell and Mr Holligan's pantomime. Sheriff Farrell had already predetermined a path of least resistance to Mr Holligan's case, as well as predetermining a litany of evasion and stonewalling?   In his written "Opinion", Sheriff Farrell disguised the primary issues, giving credence to, not Mr Holligan's secondary issues, but to his agonisingly tortuous nonissues, in a nurtured impediment to natural justice.

The complete unfolding of this case since 1989 has seen a series of corrupt sheriffs and judges rubber-stamping corrupt decision of other corrupt sheriffs and judges in an entirely contrived, stage-managed process.  I am in the hands of an endlessly implacable tyranny that abides by no code, legal or humane.  The maiden of justice is being continually raped by that tyranny.

Nevertheless, I look forward to your response, reasoned or otherwise, within a moderate time scale, particularly in the light of "Actor debet sequi forum rei", in that the illicit deferment of the discharge date of the invalid bankruptcy was granted outwith the jurisdiction of the Court to which I was subject at the time, and am not therefore bound, and cannot be compelled to answer before that court, since the decree of that Court was valueless, there being no way of enforcing it.

There is also the latest crucial factor regarding your collusion with the CockRoachie and Grim Graham to embezzle funds from the public purse in flagrant contempt of Lord Philip's ruling that the dripping roast must dry up and the gravy train riders must disembark.  If you do something about it now, you may even begin to like yourself.   You never know, it might be favourable to you when the time comes that you apply for parole.

Yours most sincerely
WILLIAM BURNS

Blind Judges
By

William Burns

Copyright © 2016 William Burns. All rights reserved.
Acknowledgement:
Credit to Tom Minogue for unearthing the SPEC roll of dishonour and also its founding members.
google
WWW Dunblane Whitewash
google
WWW Dunblane Whitewash
How many more non-Spec Law Lords are Masons nevertheless?
Law Lords who are members of the exclusive, secretive, Masonic and highly suspect Speculative Society of Edinburgh (Spec):

Poll Tax

Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns. Accountant in Bankruptcy. Poll Tax. William Burns.