Dear Madam,

Further to our encounters yesterday:

I am unwilling to contemplate the idea that the judges, in the knowledge that there was a possibility that they might be acting ultra vires, would ignore my Notice of No Jurisdiction. If that were the case, I am drawn to the irresistible conclusion that the question of whether Shetland is part of Scotland is one that is simply off limits. I am confident that their Lordships are above such political pressure.

It is therefore with heavy heart that I have to conclude that, despite your assurances, their Lordships did not see my Notice before hearing the appeal. Had they done so, they would have been in no doubt that their only course of action was to require the appellant to show proof that Shetland is part of Scotland.

I can only assume that my Notice, which you described to me as 'bits of paper', having reached you by an unapproved route outside the normal procedures, was considered by you as something to be ignored. However, lack of jurisdiction is of such fundamental importance that the court should not worry about how the information is received – especially, as in this case, there was simply not enough time to go through the normally accepted procedure. Lack of jurisdiction in its most complete sense is a matter beyond the parties and it is the duty of anyone (by whom I mean me) with knowledge of such a situation to bring it to the attention of the judges.

As you know, I was at pains to ensure that my documents, having been received by the court and all the parties on 11 December, would be brought to the attention of the judges. That is why I was so insistent that Mr. Macarthur confirm the fact that they had been placed on the file, which he eventually did – albeit with some reluctance. I think it is reasonable for me to assume that, when he confirmed they had been placed on the file, he meant the file that would be placed before the judges, not simply a file where the documents could be placed and buried out of harm's way. I was therefore astonished to be informed by you that this was indeed the case – that there were two files and that the documents had been placed in the one the judges do not see.

I drew Mr Macarthur's attention to paragraph 1.28 of my notice, which basically shows in what circumstances an official of the court would be in contempt of court, The relevant section reads: "once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they (all citizens) should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide it according to law."

The Notice is marked 'Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent. It was the duty of the recipient as agent to ensue it reached the principal, the judges. It was also marked 'To be filed on and for the record.' The intent could not have been clearer.

From your actions I must conclude the following:

1. That you consider your position enables you to ignore and attempt to conceal a legal Notice to the court.
2. That you consider your procedures superior to the legal considerations.
3. That the receipt of a fee takes precedence over the reputation of the court.
4. That you are willing to put at risk the reputation of the judges if your procedures are not followed.

Neither the court nor the parties can deny their receipt of my Notice on 11 December. There being no point at which a challenge to jurisdiction can be ignored, it still remains your duty to immediately ensure that all the judges are made aware of it. I urge you to redeem the situation and not bring the court into further disrepute.

I require two actions from you:

1. Supply confirmation that you have passed my Notice and all associated documents to each of the judges.
2. Supply confirmation of their receipt.

If you are not willing to take either of these actions, please explain why.

If you disagree with any of my above statements, kindly let me know within the next seven days. Failure to respond within that time will indicate your acquiescence.

All callings not answered will be founded upon.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hill, a man, sovereign and procurator in rem suam.

Please note: the hard copies of my documents are the ones to be relied upon. I had extra copies with me yesterday and would have left them with you had I found you more co-operative. (That is not to say my actions were retaliatory, just that I found it difficult to have a reasonable conversation with you). If you would like me to send them, I am quite willing to do so. Kindly let me know if that is what you require. I will not be back in my office until tomorrow (Saturday), so there will inevitably be a delay getting them to you. In that event, kindly immediately send copies of the Notice itself to the judges and let them know the supporting documents will follow as soon as possible.

Please be assured of my utmost co-operation to bring this matter to a proper conclusion.