OPINION OF LORD PHILIP

in the cause

GRAHAM RITCHIE

Pursuer;

against

 

WILLIAM BURNS AND

MRS FRANCES MARY STEWART OR BURNS (AP)

Defenders

________________

COURT OF SESSION

 

GRAHAM RITCHIE V. WILLIAM BURNS+MRS FRANCES MARY STEWART ...

OUTER HOUSE,

039/4/1995

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Pursuer: Robertson; Dundas & Wilson, C.S.

Defenders: Joughin; Morton Fraser Partnership (for Second Defender)

14 June 2000

[1] 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 conjecture.]

[2] 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 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. ~ 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.]

[3] 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. 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. 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 £30,000.
[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.]

[4] 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 court.]

[5] 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 South Queensferry.
[Ed. ~ Where is Lord Philip going to here?  Why is he avoiding the most uncomfortable and embarrassing aspects of the case.]

[6] 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.

[7] 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 the pursuer.]
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.]

[8] 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 factors.
[Ed. ~ I CAN blame the racketeers for that.]

[9] 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!]

[10] 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.

[11] 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 w
as 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 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.
[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.]

[12] 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?]

[13] 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 "politically corrupt".
[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 one.]

[14] 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.

[15] Whatever 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 have changed.

[16] 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.]

[17] 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 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!]
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 to preserve the concept of justice and the integrity of the court system. This is simply not being done in Scotland.

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 enough terms.

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.

Poll Tax
Copyright © 2016 Billy 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

Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip. Court Of Session. Graham Ritchie. Poll Tax. Lord Philip.