Petition Department

Court of Session

Parliament House

Parliament Square

Edinburgh

For the attention of Yvonne Anderson.

Dear Ms. Anderson,

Thank you for sending your letter 3 September 2014 by email. Although posted on 3 September, it did not arrive here until 6 September – such are the delights of living on a remote island.

I regret to say that your position as outlined is untenable. These are the reasons:

1. Lord Doherty, citing Rule 4.2(5), gave baseless reasons for refusal, giving only his personal opinion on a matter that has not been tested in the courts.
2. His judicial determination that Shetland is part of Scotland is merely his opinion based on nothing more than presumption and hearsay.
3. His alleged reasons have nothing to do with the cited Rule 4.2(5), which concern the position of a party litigant.
4. He gave no reason for refusal on the basis of my capacity as a man, as a sovereign and as procurator in rem suam, which give me an automatic right of audience.
5. I therefore declared his decision void. As a nullity, it is as if it never existed, so there was nothing to review and there was no obstacle to my presenting my petition as of new, which I did.
6. When my documents were returned without being placed before a judge, I responded by presenting them anew, together with the authorities which show why, if void, I have the right to have the decision set aside (I am aware that this is an English law term, the equivalent of which in Scots law is 'reduced'); I do not have to obey the decision; I can ignore the decision and rely on its being void as a defence; the court does not have the right to refuse to hear my petition. None of this was rebutted by the court.
7. The court concurred with my position by placing my documents before Lord Stewart, who also refused, citing again Rule 4.2(5). I was not told at the time what his reasons were.
8. You now say his reasons for refusal are that my application was 'in essence this is the same application that was previously refused by Lord Doherty'. If Lord Doherty' decision was void, which you did not previously dispute, it effectively did not exist and Lord Stewart therefore effectively gives no reason for refusal. His decision is consequently also void.
9. Both Lord Doherty's and Lord Stewart's decisions are void, which you have not previously contested, therefore you cannot state that they both stand. Indeed, were Lord Doherty's decision not void, it would not be possible for me to present my petition anew.
10. You go on to introduce Rule 4.2(3) (b). No reason has been given for refusal under Rule 4.2(5) and no reason given to exclude my right of audience in my various capacities, so this is simply a seemingly desperate diversion.
11. Lord Doherty made a judicial determination in favour of the respondent. His decision is void for the reasons given above. My well supported contention that the Scottish government has no authority in Shetland therefore stands uncontested.

The judiciary has now achieved its plainly demonstrated intent to avoid facing the question of whether Shetland is legitimately part of Scotland. Due to these unwarranted delays by the court there is now no time for due process. This only reinforces my contention that Shetland is not part of Scotland and that the power exerted in Shetland by the UK and Scottish governments is without any basis or authority. I believe this to be well known in government and the judiciary. The actions of the law lords involved in this and other cases lead me to further believe the judiciary to be in league with either or both governments and to be in breach of their duty of impartiality.

The matter of whether Shetland is part of Scotland has never been tested in the courts and there is no case law on the subject.

The court, by its determination in favour of the respondent, based on unsupported presumption and by its refusal to allow a hearing, tacitly admits that the substance of my petition is irrefutable and that the Scottish independence referendum has no validity in Shetland.

It is therefore hereby recorded:

1. That Alexander Elliott Anderson Salmond, as First Minister of the Scottish government, is acting ultra vires in authorising a referendum in Shetland in the knowledge that Shetland is not part of Scotland.
2. That the result of any such referendum, should the people of Shetland unwittingly engage in such illegal act, will be null and void and not binding upon said people.

Your silence will indicate your acquiescence.

I am accordingly

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hill, a man, sovereign without the states of Scotland or the United Kingdom and procurator in rem suam.

Copy: Alexander Elliott Anderson Salmond