Pursuer: Robertson; Dundas &
Defenders: 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. [Ed
~ 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
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 gangland accomplices, are
adopting the catch-all ruse to prevent the defender from putting
his case fairly to the court. It is a legal establishment
dodge to confuse and mislead the defender, and the public, 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 human rights.]
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 ~ She did not plead anything.
Her "legal" controllers pled on their own interests.
Only her "prompted" unwitting averments were heard
The only genuine party's averments, that of the first defender's
averments, 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"
 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 Region.
[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, nullifying
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. LINK
[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" system.]
The result of the first defender's conduct has been that the
expenses of the administration of the estate now amount to about
[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
[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 present action.
[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
[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 assets. LINK
So far as is known neither the first nor the second defenders
have any other assets.
 Although 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 rejected.
[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 it immediately.]
 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 family.]
The condition is known to be exacerbated by stress or emotional
[Ed ~ I CAN blame the racketeers
 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
 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 South Queensferry.
 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, I loudly expounded to the court, 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
was 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.
[Ed ~ As mentioned above, the
creditor had not existed since Ian Rogers' job as Poll Tax officer
was made redundant on 5 April 1993. LINK]
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
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.
[Ed ~ 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
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 man is.]
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
 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 is speculation.
[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.
 Whatever happens the creditors will receive
[Ed ~ 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
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 continue.
[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 to be.]
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 begin to like himself.
That is 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
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 Philip's "Opinion"
[Ed ~ 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.
What is important
is the preservation of the concept of justice and the integrity
of the court system. This is simply miserably lacking
Some 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
The 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.
For 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.]