.

.

.

Home
Declaration
Democracy
Banking
Currency
Justice
Constitution
The Law
Energy
I Declare
Documents
Links
Forvik
Stolen Isles
Wir Islands, Wir Future

.........The Sovereign Nation of Shetland
.

.

.
PUBLIC NOTICE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
As Returning Officer and Deputy Returning Officer, Alistair Buchan and Jan Riise have been notified that the UK general election was void in its effect in Shetland. They make no denial of the fact.
The Court of Session has been notified that it has no jurisdiction in the case People v. Carmichael. The Court can only get jurisdiction if the party bringing the case can show proof that Shetland is part of Scotland. If the Court should proceed without hearing proof of its jurisdiction, all proceedings will be void and the judges will have wilfully acted ultra vires (outside their authority), a serious offence.
YOU ARE NOTIFIED

For the Alistair Carmichael case, see below. To find out why the UK election was void in Shetland click here.

ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL:

In this action, after admitting I was a party to the action, the court took the extraordinary action of stationing police outside the public gallery with instructions to eject anyone who stood up or attempted to speak. As a party, I should have had access to the lawyers' entrance, but that too was blocked by police presence and I was prevented from entering. The court completely ignored the challenge to its jurisdiction and all proceedings were therefore void.

Alistair Carmichael has been at the centre of a controversy about his leaking a document damaging to the SNP just before the election, denying that he knew about it and not admitting to lying about it until after the result was announced and he had been elected. A group called The People versus Carmichael has, at the time of writing, raised over 60,000 to take him to court (the Court of Session in Edinburgh).

They have undertaken to give any of the money not used in the case to Scottish food-bank charities and I would like to help them in that endeavour. I hate to see money going to lawyers. I stepped in to remind the Court of Session that it has no jurisdiction in Shetland, that no court has been shown any proof that Shetland is part of Scotland and that the UK general election was invalid as far as Shetland is concerned.

The court tried its best to shut me out and they threatened to return all documents that did not fit within their protocol (which involved paying a fee of 202). However, what I sent was a Notice, that reached them on 3 June. As a Notice, it does not have to fit their ptotocol - I simply notified them that they don't have jurisdiction and showing them why. When I pointed out that the Supreme Court considered similar documents competent enough to be put before the judges, they decide to accept them into the case. Once notified, they cannot deny knowledge of the Notice. Email correspondence here.

Once notified, until the court is shown, by the party bringing the case, proof that Shetland is part of Scotland, it has no jurisdiction in Shetland.

Even if this case does not go ahead (and I would not be surprised if it were dropped - no barrister will want to be standing in court supporting the Crown's assertion that the UK's authority in Shetland rests on a magazine article and the Court of Session does not want it in open court) the Notice stands for any future case involving Shetland.

Here is the Notice:










On the day that time ran out for Answers to be submitted to the court, I received this:


This was my reply:


To which the court replied:

The letter draws a distinction between the administrative staff and the 'court' (para. 5). I was interested to know what the 'court' comprises. An email request reveals that it is the judges. This gets interesting.

I replied:



The court replied with this:

To which I replied:


The following day it was announced that a 'by order' hearing was to be held in two days time, on 2 July. Once again, generous support enabled me to fly down to Edinburgh for the hearing. The plane was delayed, so the hearing was already in progress when I got there. Out of courtesy, I sat in the public gallery - at the front and close to a vacant seat in the body of the court. By the fact that the proceedings were in progress was apparent that Judge Lady Paton had taken no steps to hear evidence of jurisdiction. As the hearing finished, I stepped forward to the vacant position and reminded the court that there was a challenge to its jurisdiction, that the documents were in the 'process' and that I was entitled to be heard as a party. After a quick conflab between the clerk and the judge, the judge announced I was not a party and she could not hear me. Strange acoustics in that room!

Next day I sent this:

Then a most interesting reply. At first sight it looks like a complete rejection of my position. However, it is a reply to my Notice for Clarity and must be viewed in that light. It is a reply, but not a response. It does not reject the terms of the Notice for Clarity, it simply ignores them. It comes after, and therefore supercedes Lady Paton's decision The only direct answer is a categoric 'No' to the question "Does the court deny that only a party can have documents lodged in the process?" In other words, the court confirms that only a party can have documents lodged in the process. My Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction is lodged in the process, therefore I am a party and I must be heard. Everything else in the letter is bluff and bluster, simply repeating what has been been said before. By not rejecting the terms of the Notice, the court agrees with these statements:

  1. S1) We reiterate that Our Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction dated 2 June 2015 does not comprise Answers in this case. It is a Notice. It warns that the court will be acting ultra vires if it proceeds to a hearing or any other procedure other than dismissal of the case, until it hears proof, from the party bringing a case, that Shetland is part of Scotland.
  2. S2) The court order to which you refer in this matter is irrelevant since Our Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction is a Notice concerning the court's general jurisdiction in any matters concerning Shetland. It affects this case, but is not particular to it. It affects the court's overall jurisdiction in Shetland.
  3. S3) The Rule of Court to which you refer is also irrelevant since it requires Answers corresponding to paragraphs in the writ to which they apply. The writ makes no statement of jurisdiction, therefore there is no paragraph to which answers could be made. This does not reduce the effectiveness of Our Notice, neither does it relieve the petitioner of the obligation to prove jurisdiction when said jurisdiction is challenged.
  4. S4) The court is aware of Our Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and cannot deny knowledge of it. The competence of the Notice is demonstrated by the fact that it has been accepted by the court [and by the Supreme Court] and by the fact that the court lodged it in the process. If any judge should ignore it and proceed with this or any other case concerning Shetland without hearing proof, from the party bringing the case, that Shetland is part of Scotland, all such proceedings will be ultra vires and void ab initio. The court has been so notified.

The last paragraph: "I trust this clarifies the court's position". It certainly does. It shows that although they (reluctantly) recognise that I'm a party, they will do everything they can to stop me exercising my rights - as was to be shown at the next hearing. My questions are getting too difficult - he is intending (or has been instructed) to conceal my Notice of Void Proceedings from the judges and will not answer any further letters.

Here is the letter:

A strong reply was needed:



Having said they will not reply to any further letters, a reply! Still they contradict themselves by trying to insist I am not a party. However, they confirm that Lady Paton has been notified of both the court's lack of jurisdiction and the fact that the 2 July hearing was void for lack of jurisdiction. Whether I am a party or not, the judges cannot pretend they know nothing of these notices. They imply that Lady Paton advised me I was not a party on the strength of these documents, while at the same time confirming she only received them around 13 July - 11 days later! Once again the threat to make no further replies as they dig the hole deeper.

This was my reply:

From the court:

It was time to get some straight answers. This was my reply:

After a week's delay while they thought about my questions, this from the court:

Straight answers are obviously not on the menu. All my questions are ignored - they seem to be getting too difficult and there seems to be an effort to stone-wall. This was my reply:

Now they abandon all effort to make any answer. There is a clear attempt to pervert the course of justice:

Time to inform the police: