RITCHIE V. WILLIAM BURNS+MRS
FRANCES MARY STEWART ...
Robertson; Dundas &
Joughin; Morton Fraser Partnership
(for Second Defender)
14 June 2000
 The pursuer in this action is the permanent trustee on
the sequestrated estate of William Burns, the first defender.
He seeks the authority of the Court in terms of section 40(1)
of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 to sell the house at
18 Shore Road, South Queensferry, the family home, jointly
owned by the first defender and his wife, Mrs Frances Mary
Stewart or Burns, the second defender. He also concludes
for declarator (a) that he is entitled to insist in action
of division and sale of the house; (b) that the division of
the house is impracticable; and (c) that it is necessary that
it be sold and the price divided. He further concludes
for warrant to sell.
[Ed. ~ It has to be declared from the
start that the Defence submitted by the legal agents on behalf
of the second defender was not a defence at all but a diversion,
and was clearly based on the premise that I had nothing relevant
to add to the proceedings, even though I was the only person
who could lend any credibility to the sham. Lord Philip's
terms of reference excluded my entire defence, reducing the
farce to a kangaroo show hearing. His "Opinion",
when referring to either the first or second defender (myself
or my wife), is best decribed as a litany of maliciously manufactured
 The pursuer
was appointed permanent trustee on the sequestrated estate
of the first defender on 23 February 1993. On 15 March
1993 the pursuer requested the consent of the second defender
to the sale of the family home. Although the request
was addressed to the second defender, the first defender responded
indicating that the second defender was refusing her consent
and requiring the trustee not to correspond with her but with
him. [Not true. The second
defender had absolutely no part to play in or knowledge of
the poll tax complexity I was engaged in. It was my
fight and my fight only. I thought I made that perfectly
clear.] In the absence of the second defender's
consent the pursuer raised this action in Edinburgh Sheriff
Court in late 1994. Notice of Title in favour of the
trustee in respect of the first defender's one-half pro indiviso
share of the property was recorded on 16 February 1995.
On 12 April 1995 the cause was remitted to the Court of Session. Between
May 1995 and June 1996 the cause was sisted to await the second
defender's grant of legal aid to be extended to Court of Session
proceedings. The first defender lodged lengthy defences.
These were held irrelevant on 21 May 1997 and the action proceeded
against the second defender alone.
[Ed. ~ Not only was my defence deemed
"irrelevant et separatim lacking in specification",
thereby denying me my locus standi (my right to be heard in
court), but I was not even allowed to sit in court on the
public benches to watch the whispering machine in action,
such was the debasement of the legal process. They were
coordinating to declare the winner, dishonestly, without allowing
the race to be run. Incidentally, my defence had over
14,000 words in the condescendence alone and Lord Ordinary
T G Coutts admitted at the Procedure Roll that I raised many
interesting and valid points. LINK
So how can my Defence be then deemed irrelevant?
The courts would be hard pushed to dig up a defence from their
annals with more specification than mine. That said,
the Crown has a legal duty not to accept hole-and-corner proceedings,
but it failed miserably. LINK
When a party in a lawsuit asks the court to declare the opposition's
defence "irrelevant 'et separatim' lacking in specification",
therefore should not be allowed a Proof Hearing, you can rest
assured that the pursuer, and his accomplices, are adopting
the catch-all ruse to prevent the defender from putting any
case fairly to the court. It is a legal establishment
action to confuse and mislead the defender and to choose the
winner before the competition runs its race. This stratagem
is designed, at best, to not embarrass the legal system by
openly revealing its deficiencies, or, at worst, to illustrate
how entrenched the corruption is. It also contravenes
national and international law, disregarding our legal and
She pleads that authority to sell should be withheld or alternatively
that it should be postponed for twelve months. I heard
proof of the parties' averments.
[Ed. ~ Only ONE party's "prompted"
averments were heard, that of the unwitting party. The
only genuine party's averments, that of the first defender,
were consigned to oblivion.]
The first part of the proof was heard in late 1998.
Regrettably, a continued diet was not available until early
2000, when the proof was concluded.
[Ed. ~ A continued diet was not available
for over a year in the numerous courtrooms in the Supreme
Courts? Who is he trying to kid? Many courtrooms
are empty long before the lunch break! Lord Philip is
clearly a liar, but that goes without saying. Like all
the other legal hoodlums he was having difficulty dealing
with the case. Whether he was a fall guy or not, he
was in a no-win situation, irrespective of the decision he
was obligated to ultimately make. Whichever way you
choose to look at it, Lord Philip willingly colluded with
the legal thugs.]
 I found the
following facts proved. The original debt on which sequestration
proceeded amounted to approximately £975.00, being the
expenses of an unsuccessful action raised by the first defender
against the Community Charge Registration Officer for Lothian
[Ed. ~ How could it be proved when,
inter alia, I had an appeal pending in the Court of Session
against that so-called "unsuccessful action"?
The truth is my appeal was never heard because the legislation
under which I appealed, the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc
(Scotland) Act 1987, was rescinded on 5 April 1993. LINK
Not forgetting my upheld appeal in the High Court of Justiciary
on 6 December 1996 was upheld by the Lord Justice-Clerk
Ross and Lords Morrison and Cowie. LINK
So Lord Philip was being miserly with the truth, practising
in the art of protective omission.]
Prior to his appointment as permanent trustee, and in his
capacity as interim trustee, the pursuer requested the first
defender to provide a list of his assets and liabilities.
The first defender refused and has persistently refused to
comply with that request, despite an interlocutor of the Sheriff
at Edinburgh dated 15 September 1994 ordaining him do so.
The subsequent administration of the estate has been hindered
by the first defender's deliberate failure to co-operate with
the trustee in any way. To make matters
worse, the trustee and other officials concerned with the
administration of the estate (including myself) have received
hundreds of letters from the first defender couched in abusive,
offensive and defamatory terms indicating his refusal to co-operate.
[Ed. ~ One cannot be found guilty of
"defamation of character" if the character who is
being defamed is entitled to be defamed and if there is evidence
to prove it. The very tools of the legal profession's
trade can be plied with either an accusation of contempt of
court or with a lawsuit for defamation of character.
Either way the truth would emerge, which obviously scared
them. Not only would their individual characters be
besmirched but so would the entire legal "justice"
The result of the first defender's conduct has been that the
expenses of the administration of the estate now amount to
[Ed. ~ It actually amounted to over
£60,000, but because my supposed half of the division
and sale of the house would not nearly cover that amount,
they had to reduce it to a figure that was feasible to thieve,
so they reduced it to £30,000 - such is the depths to
which they will stoop to avoid embarrassment.]
 The family
home at 18 Shore Road, South Queensferry was purchased by
the defenders in 1982 and the title was taken in joint names.
They have lived in the house in family since that date.
They have three children; a daughter aged 26 who lives outwith
the family home; a son Michael, aged 18, and a son, Daniel,
aged 12. The defenders are both unemployed. The
first defender has not worked for 17 years. His last
employment terminated because of a disagreement with his employer. In
the light of this long period of unemployment and the frame
of mind indicated by the contents of his correspondence and
defences, there seems to be little or no likelihood of his
obtaining employment in the future.
[Ed. ~ The content of my correspondence
and defences were commendable. LINK]
There was no suggestion that he is seeking work.
[Ed. ~ There was no suggestion that
he was either seeking work or not seeking work! Why
should there be? One way or another? So why was
Lord Philip flooding his Opinion with details that bear no
relevance to the case? Is Hans Christian Philip attempting
to create a fictional account to add to the Fairy Tales and
Stories of the Senators of the College of Justice
leading the unwitting into realms that exist only in
the backwaters of those Senators' imaginations, pretending
I am the wrongdoer in the storyline?]
The second defender, who is 46 years of age, has not worked
since 1985. She formerly worked as a medical secretary,
but stopped work in order to devote herself to the upbringing
of the children. She has had no training in the advances
in secretarial techniques which have taken place in the last
15 years. She would however be able to attend a
retraining course without cost to her. Although
she wrote to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary in 1999 enquiring
about employment, she feels she should be at home for Daniel,
and that, in any event, she would be unlikely to earn a large
enough salary to make a significant difference to the family's
economic circumstances. In these circumstances it is
unlikely that she will readily find employment in her former
occupation. It seemed to me that she found the prospect
of employment daunting.
[Ed. ~ All these details are just a
distraction from the crux of the matter, disregarding the
invalid Poll Tax and sequestration. LINK
The entire court proceedings were mapped out to suit
their own agenda, ignoring the illegally contrived sequestration,
and ultimately preventing me from putting my defence to the
 The older
boy, Michael, is presently attending Telford College, Edinburgh
studying for an HNC in computing. He travels to college
by bus. He is uncertain as to his next step when his
course concludes at the end of the current academic year.
I was told that his decision depended on the outcome of the
[Ed. ~ Any uncertainty, if it did exist,
had nothing to do with the outcome of the present action.
Michael knew nothing about the action.]
He is in receipt of the maximum student grant and would
have considerable difficulty in paying for alternative accommodation
out of that grant. He has a part-time job at a local
supermarket in South Queensferry. I was given no information
as to his income from that source. The younger boy,
Daniel, attends St Augustine's School in the Sighthill area
of Edinburgh. St Augustine's is a Roman Catholic school with
a large catchment area comprising the whole of the western
part of the City of Edinburgh Council area. A number
of children from South Queensferry attend the school and the
Council runs buses to and from the school for their benefit. Daniel
has lived all his life in South Queensferry and has indicated
that he would not like to stay anywhere else. He
plays football for a local boys' club. Most of his friends
live in South Queensferry although he is beginning to make
friends from other parts of the city who attend St Augustine's.
He is presently in his first year of secondary school there.
He plays for a school football team and has to travel to both
home and away matches. The family is clearly settled
in South Queensferry.
[Ed. ~ Where is Lord Philip going to
here? Why is he avoiding the most uncomfortable and
embarrassing aspects of the case.]
 The defenders
are in receipt of state benefits of £261.30 per fortnight.
The second defender pays £100 per month in interest
on the building society loan secured over the family home. £80
of this sum is met by housing benefit and the second defender
makes up the additional £20 from her other income. In
December 1999 the house was worth approximately £60,000.
There is little doubt that the value has risen somewhat
since that time. At the present time the building society
loan stands at approximately £21,000. The
free proceeds of any sale would therefore be likely to be
about £40,000, one half of which would go to the second
defender. A share of the expenses of sale would
of course require to be deducted from that figure. Since
the first defender has refused to give details of his assets
and liabilities, the trustee has no knowledge of any other
So far as is known neither the first nor the second
defenders have any other assets.
her consent to the sale of the property was first sought in
1993 the second defender has found herself unable to take
any steps to find alternative accommodation in the intervening
period, or to make any plans for the future. She was
frank in her evidence that she has been unable to face up
to her predicament. She does not know what she
would do if the house was sold. Although she professes
not to share her husband's views she is powerless to influence
them, and has been unable to persuade him to co-operate with
the pursuer or to take any action independent of him.
[Ed. ~ My wife is completely apolitical,
which explains why she did not share my views. Nor
did she disagree with them. However, she never opposed
them because she was never interested in the stance I took,
virtuous or otherwise. To say she was "unable"
to persuade me to co-operate with the pursuer is totally unacceptable
because she never once asked me to co-operate with the pursuer! She
was neither involved nor interested. During all the
years I fought relentlessly exposing the illegal Poll Tax
she never showed any interest. From the outset, I made
sure my family were not involved. With an issue that
was so ridiculously elementary, I could not allow my attention
to be distracted from my conscientious, personal battle to
rid the country of the ILLEGAL and unfair tax.]
In about May 1995, the second defender's mother became aware
of her predicament and offered to find the sum of around £900
to keep a roof over the second defender's head. The
second defender, without the knowledge of her husband, consulted
her solicitor who enquired of the trustee's agent whether
he would consider accepting an offer of the principal debt
in return for the release of the first defender's pro indiviso
share. The second defender was advised at the time of
the enquiry that it was unlikely that the offer would be acceptable.
[Ed. ~ This is a damnable lie!]
When it was communicated to the trustee it was immediately
[Ed. ~ This is also a damnable lie to
suppress the fact that they did not even acknowledge that
the offer was made until 16 months later, by which time the
pretended debt had obviously soared. LINK
That was due entirely to the delaying tactics of agents for
For some reason, whether by failure on the part of the trustee's
solicitor to intimate the rejection, or on the part of the
second defender's solicitors to communicate with her, the
second defender was not informed of the rejection of the offer
until June 1996. Whatever the explanation may be I am
satisfied that an offer in the region of £900 was not
acceptable in May 1995 or at any time thereafter. LINK
As at May 1995, a sum of about £10,000 would have been
necessary to secure settlement.
[Ed. ~ Says who? The gravy train
riders? If that is to be believed, why did they not
say so at that time, or as soon as possible after 5 May 1995? Why
wait 16 months? I'll tell you why: they were unable
to deal with all the intrigue so they had to once again change
the goalposts! If these despicable characters stooped
any lower they would have to be watered.]
The second defender's mother would not have been in a position
to find such a sum at any stage.
[Ed. ~ Had the original offer been accepted
I would not have experienced the extent of the deep-rooted
corruption, then found it necessary to expose it. By
the same token, they could have avoided the embarrassment
of being exposed. In that respect, I thank them for
providing me with the ammunition to expose their cowardly,
iniquitous processes. In any event, had I known that
my mother-in-law was offering ANY payment to satisfy the low-life
rodents' scheming demands, I would have pulled the plug on
 The second
defender suffers from mild to moderate hypertension for which
she receives continuing treatment. It seems likely
that this is contributed to by the stress which she finds
herself under as a result of the uncertainty as to the future
created by her husband's behaviour.
[Ed. ~ If stress was caused by anyone
it could only have been by the behaviour of the low-life cretins
prolonging the bogus debt scenario. No stress was created
by me because I kept her outside the framework of the hostile
confrontations. She was ultimately dragged into it by
the vindictive, legal riffraff.]
The condition is, however, under control. She
also suffers from psoriasis which varies in severity from
time to time and for which she takes medication. It
appears from the medical records however that she has suffered
from psoriasis since at least the 1970s.
[Ed. ~ I can not blame the racketeers
for that - it is a hereditary condition passed down in her
The condition is known to be exacerbated by stress or emotional
[Ed. ~ I CAN blame the racketeers for
 As I have
indicated the second defender has found herself unable to
make any enquiries as to alternative accommodation. If
decree were to be awarded against her she would require to
do so. She would probably have capital in the region
of £15,000 as her share of the proceeds of the house.
She would clearly be unable to purchase alternative accommodation
with that sum, and she would be unlikely to be able to afford
private rented accommodation for any length of time.
In those circumstances she would require to apply to the City
of Edinburgh Council Housing Department for accommodation.
On doing so she would be assessed in order to establish whether
she and her sons were homeless in terms of the Housing (Scotland)
Act 1987. If they fulfilled the criteria the Council
would have a legal obligation to secure permanent accommodation
for them. There are four stages in the assessment.
It is firstly established whether the applicant is in fact
homeless or threatened with homelessness. In the second
stage it is established whether the applicant has a priority
need. An applicant with a child under sixteen years
of age is assessed as having a priority need. The second
defender clearly meets that criterion. In the third
stage it is established whether the homelessness was intentional,
that is, caused by deliberate acts or omissions on the part
of the applicant. One example of intentional homelessness
would be where the applicant had failed to pay rent or mortgage
repayments. All the circumstances are looked at
in order to assess whether the applicant is culpable.
An impecunious applicant who was unable to pay rent would
not be regarded as intentionally homeless. The final
stage in the assessment is to ascertain whether the applicant
has a local connection with Edinburgh. Again the
second defender clearly meets that criterion.
[Ed. ~ Who do these low-life characters think they are, mapping
out people's lives for them? Horrible, deplorable people!]
 It seems
to me that there is a reasonable prospect that the second
defender would be assessed as homeless. In that situation
she would be provided with temporary accommodation and advice
and assistance on how to obtain permanent accommodation.
The Council's target is that an applicant should remain for
no more than sixty days in temporary accommodation.
The location of any temporary accommodation is entirely dependant
upon availability and might be in areas of the city such as
Clermiston and Wester Hailes. No temporary accommodation
is available in South Queensferry. The applicant
would be placed on a waiting list for permanent accommodation
which is operated on the basis of need. Applicants
are invited to choose an area but there is no certainty that
they will be allocated a house in the area of their choice.
The Council hopes to offer permanent accommodation within
28 days of the applicant being made homeless and the allocation
depends on the availability at that time. The applicant
would then receive an offer of accommodation. If
that offer were refused, the applicant's name would remain
on the list but no second offer would be made for another
six months. After six months the application would be
looked at again by the Council, but the applicant would not
be treated as a homeless person. The areas of the city
which were mentioned in evidence as the possible location
of available permanent housing were Wester Hailes, Oxgangs,
Broomhouse in the west of the city; Muirhouse and West Pilton
in the north; Niddrie, Greendykes and Craigmillar in the east;
and Gracemount and Hyvots in the south. The principal
housing officer of the Council who gave evidence accepted
that most families would prefer not to be allocated houses
in those areas. It is clear that any accommodation provided
by the Council would be in a much less attractive area than
Attention was drawn in the course of the proof, by counsel
for the second defender to the fact that a sequestration which
had proceeded upon a debt of about £975, had given rise
to many thousands of pounds worth of expenses of administration. The
suggestion was made, as I understood it, that in the light
of the first defender's attitude, [Ed.
~ Which was exemplary.] there had been no justification
for incurring that level of expenditure on administration.
[Ed. ~ I totally agree.]
Once sequestration was granted the trustee had a duty to take
possession of the debtor's estate, to realise it and to distribute
it to creditors.
[Ed. ~ Not so; no creditor existed after 5 April 1993
when Ian Rogers' job as Poll Tax officer became redundant. LINK
Besides, the amount for which he was (unjustifiably) claiming
over-ridden within 6 months by Graham Ritchie's unwarranted
administration costs, so Ian Rogers no longer had ANY interest
in the pseudo debt. What is more, Graham Ritchie's first
duty is to himself, not legal practitioners/gangsters in the
crime protection syndicate. God made men imago viva
Dei (in his own image) with the divine spark of reason, gifted
by God as an inalienable right to all men equally to do the
right thing. Graham Ritchie was informed more times
than enough about my sequestration being deviously manufactured
by legal mechanics operating outside the law - but he chose
to ignore the fact.]
Mr MacGillivray, the correspondence manager from the Accountant
in Bankruptcy' office who gave evidence, said that the Accountant
in Bankruptcy was not in a position to waive the trustee's
obligation to realise the estate. If he failed to do
so the Accountant in Bankruptcy would not discharge him.
A trustee could only be authorised to refrain from realising
the estate if the creditors instructed him so to do.
As mentioned above, the creditor had not existed since Ian
Rogers' job as Poll Tax officer was made redundant on 5 April
The escalation in the expenses of administration of this case
was occasioned entirely by the failure of the debtor to co-operate. A
large of amount of time was spent by the trustee's staff in
patiently answering the points raised in his offensive and
defamatory letters. LINK
Ultimately in 1997 the Accountant in Bankruptcy authorised
the trustee simply to acknowledge such letters. The
trustee's outlays in the meantime have been met by the public
purse and the Accountant of Court is bound to recoup these
outlays. If the authority of the Court were to be refused
in the present action, the trustee would seek the authority
of the Court at a later date when the circumstances had changed.
In the absence of any more specific or detailed criticism
of the trustee's actings, there are, in my view, no grounds
for finding that the trustee has acted improperly or incurred
unnecessary expense. In these circumstances there
is nothing in the trustee's conduct which affects my determination
of this application.
Since Lord Philip is the final link in the stage-managed illegal
process, it is hardly surprising he does not find that the
nominated trustee acted improperly in the subplot of the Fairy
Tales and Stories.]
Section 40(2) of the 1985 Act enjoins me, in determining whether
to refuse or grant the application to have regard to all the
circumstances of the case, including - (a) the needs and financial
resources of the second defender; (b) the needs and financial
resources of any child of the family; (c) the interests of
the creditors; and (d) the length of the period during which
the family home has been used as a residence by the second
defender and her children.
[Ed. ~ Amazing! They can actually
bring out the law when the occasion demands. Do they
ignore the law only when faced with uncomfortable truths?
Indeed, do they only refer to the law when they run out of
lies? We should be told! Also, if he was going
to "have regard to ALL the circumstances of the case"
why did he ignore my entire defence, consisting of over 14,000
words in the condescendence alone?]
 This is
a profoundly regrettable case the need for which could have
been avoided had the first defender chosen to co-operate with
the pursuer in the administration of the sequestrated estate.
[Ed. ~ I could not possibly allow myself
to cooperate with deep-rooted lawlessness on a grand scale.]
His refusal to do so is apparently based on a conviction that
the community charge was an unlawful and unjust tax and that
all connected (however remotely) with its administration are
[Ed. ~ On every individual occasion
I was simply calling the devil by his name!]
The first defender has chosen to put what he describes as
his "noble struggle against extortionists and racketeers"
before the interests and welfare of his wife and family.
[Ed. ~ How dare this impudent little
man in horsehair, a microcosm of deceit and empty-headedness,
suggest I was putting anything before the interests and welfare
of my wife and family. My wife and family had nothing
to do with the case. I was forced by my conscience to
fight the legal establishment for imposing an illegal and
immoral tax in Scotland - plain and simple. The rodents
brought my wife and family into their floor show precisely
to intimidate me into giving up my "noble struggle against
extortionists and racketeers". For Lord Philip
to suggest otherwise illustrates just how worthless this pathetic
As a result, the second defender has had to live in
very difficult circumstances and it is impossible not to feel
considerable sympathy for her in her predicament.
[Ed. ~ Crocodile tears! This inadequate
law lord joined the plotters who devised ALL the predicaments.
So let us make no mistake about that one.]
 The specific
factors detailed in section 40(2) can be dealt with briefly.
The second defender, Michael and Daniel clearly need a roof
over their heads. It is perhaps possible that Michael
could find and pay for alternative accommodation with a student
grant and any earnings that he might make. That however
[Ed. ~ It is ALL speculation.
He has the audacity to theorise about my family's welfare
and future, while using them precisely to avoid addressing
the real issues. Like all the other spineless legal
operatives, he is trying to pass the buck ]
Daniel on the other hand requires to stay with his
mother. The first and second defenders are dependent
in state benefits and there is no prospect of any improvement
in their financial circumstances except that the second defender
could expect a payment of about £15,000 from the sale
of the family home. The second defender suffers from
hypertension and psoriasis. She receives medication
for both conditions but neither is severe.
happens the creditors will receive no benefits.
[That was due to the Pursuer, Graham
Ritchie tactically delaying his action in order to ensure
the so-called creditor Ian Rogers could not receive any benefits
and he/Ritchie would corner the market for all the ill-gotten
gains. He later added supplementary carriages to the
gravy train to multiply the expenses, with total irreverence
to our laws. LINK]
The expenses of administration exceed the potential free proceeds
of the house and that is a situation that has obtained for
a considerable time. The expenses of administration
have been met by the public purse and will require to be recouped.
If the application is refused the trustee will have no alternative
but to return to the Court in the future when circumstances
Section 40(2) enjoins me to have regard to all the circumstances
of the case. I consider that these include both the
public interest and the first defender's behaviour.
[Ed. ~ Which, again, was commendable.]
In my view it is in the public interest that sequestration
should be brought to an end within a reasonable time and should
not be allowed to drift on for an indeterminate period.
[Ed. ~ It was in the public interest
to declare the Poll Tax illegal in Scotland and put to bed
this decade-long earner for the gravy train riders.
In any event, that statement was years too late to stop the
gravy train running out of control.]
It is also in the public interest that expenses of
administration paid for by the public purse should be recouped.
As was submitted by counsel for the pursuer, it would
not be in the public interest if the first defender were to
be seen to benefit from his recalcitrance.
[Ed. ~ How could the first defender,
the long-suffering victim of the Crime Protection Syndicate,
benefit for not his recalcitrance but for exposing the illegality
of the Poll Tax and also for his meritorious fight in exposing
the lack of principles of the scheming swindlers and racketeers
among these "citizens-above-suspicion"? Lord
Philip's entire "Opinion" was a litany of evasion
and stonewalling. His attempt to justify it was based
on extraneous matters on every aspect.]
 The principal
concern is the effect of the sale of the house on Daniel and
to a lesser extent the pursuer. He will lose the home
he has lived in all his life and will have to move with his
mother to a less pleasant environment. He will however
be able to continue at the same school where he is settling
down and beginning to make new friends. On the assumption
that Daniel intends to complete his secondary education he
will continue at school for another five or six years.
In these circumstances the stark choice facing me is whether
the house should be sold now or at some time in the future. In
all the circumstances I do not consider it to be in the interests
of any party to allow the present state of uncertainty to
[Ed. ~ What?
It would not be in the interests of the second defender to
be able to continue living in her family home? What
planet is Lord Philip living on? Besides, Daniel is
of sounder mind than of which Lord Philip could ever dream
The second defender is still of an age at which she is able
to make a new life.
[Ed. ~ Who said
she wanted to make a new life?
Is this wiglice vermin of a lawyerling trying to recommend
that my wife should make a new life for herself? What
colossal gall! Perhaps he ought to have considered changing
his own opprobrious ways; he might even have began to like
himself. But that is only my "Opinion".]
As the years go by that will become more difficult.
Any important examinations which Daniel may want to sit in
the future are some years away and it is to be hoped that
by that time the family will have been able to settle down.
In these circumstances, making the best assessment I can,
it seems to me that the bullet should be bitten now.
[Ed. ~ Perhaps he should have "swallowed"
It is clear that steps will require to be taken by
the second defender to obtain alternative accommodation and
I think it appropriate to give her time in which to do that.
In the circumstances I shall grant the application but postpone
the grant for a period of six months. [Ed.
~ It never happened; but how magnanimous of him! There
are far too many legal practitioners like Lord Philip who
are so-called because they are not lawyers at all but law
practitioners or law businessmen, merely legal mechanics or
law warehousemen, or law herdsmen. Some liken them to
plumber's mates, keeping the internal excrement flowing.
Be that as it may, all the legal vultures involved in this
case, including Lord Philip, joined hands in an obscene embrace
and predetermined a path of least resistance to the Pursuer's
submissions and, more importantly, ignored the fact that the
Poll Tax was illegal in Scotland at the outset. Unfortunately,
most operatives in the legal system are socially dysfunctional
and high-level thieves whom tradition protects from either
treatment or restraint.]
End of Lord
~ As can be seen from the above, the legal authorities are
able to easily camouflage any case without remotely referring
to the substance of it or even to the most miniscule aspect
of it. Anyone reading Lord Philip's farcical account
would have no idea whatsoever what truly went on beforehand
and would automatically assume that the first defender was
irresponsible and uncaring for his family, with no respect
for the law, when, in actual fact, the opposite is the case. I
took total responsibility for my justifiable stance against
the legal businessmen (for that is all they are) who irresponsibly
ignored our laws, and I did so not only for the sake of myself
and my own family, but, first and foremost, because it was
unequivocally an illegal tax in Scotland, which made most
families in Scotland suffer as a result. It was not
me, but these working mechanics, citizens-above-suspicion,
who acted irresponsibly, with no respect for our laws, and
made millions of families victims of their deplorable collaboration
with their political masters, while making a farce of our
courts. Yes, THEY made a farce of OUR courts and OUR
laws - I merely exposed the fact.
is important is to preserve the concept of justice and the
integrity of the court system. This is simply not being done
people might think I went over the top with the weekly letters
I sent them, "couched in defamatory terms ", as
Lord Philip would have it. LINK
I disagree. I did not go far enough because they were
all reluctant to sue me for defamation of character.
They simply did not want me back in court to expose all the
foregoing cover-ups and corruption. So in that respect
perhaps my failing was that I did not defame them often enough,
or in strong enough terms.
ham actor Lord Philip produced his "Opinion", having
wrested everything out of context from the theatre of the
absurd, in furtive chambers away from the public eye.
Indeed, he produced his Opinion not to the parties mentioned
on the "Closed Record" of the case, but instead
made a bugle call to the media so they could read it first. This
was obviously a sneaky stratagem to catch me off my guard
and undermine not only my case but me as a person. It
backfired when I was asked by the press and television media
at my front door what I thought of Lord Philip's decision.
Having been informed by them what that decision was,
I emphatically declared: "Lord Philip is a low-life maggot."
I intentionally left myself wide open to a charge of contempt
in order to earn another day in court to repeat my previous
allegations and expose the deep-rooted corruption. Of
course, no such charge materialised, even though my defamatory
remark was televised on the national news. Lord Philip
must have squirmed when he saw it.
the record, my wife and I separated years afterwards, but
it had nothing whatsover to do with Lord Philip's contemptible
"Opinion" regarding my fight against the illegal
poll tax, or to the interconnected court case shambles.
We remain on good terms so hell mend Lord Philip's conjecture.