Outwith, but near UK
By Royal Mail Signed For Delivery
David Edmond Neuberger aka. Lord Neuberger
c/o The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
London SW1P 3BD
Case Number UKSC 2014/0216
Sustainable Shetland v. Scottish Ministers and Viking Energy Partnership.
Notice of Void Proceedings.
Do not ignore this document. It is a Notice. It informs you.
Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.
To be filed on and for the record.
This notice to be read in conjunction with Notice of No Jurisdiction dated 4 December 2014.
- The United Kingdom Supreme Court derives its jurisdiction from United Kingdom legislation.
- If Shetland is not part of the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction there.
- If Shetland is not part of Scotland, the Scottish government has no authority there.
- Lerwick Sheriff Court in both civil and criminal actions, The Court of Session and The High Court of The Judiciary have all been challenged on their jurisdiction on the basis that Shetland is not part of Scotland. (Productions 3-7 of Notice of No Jurisdiction).
- Lerwick Sheriff Court was shown a magazine article by the Crown as 'proof' that Shetland is part of Scotland. (Production 2 of Notice of No Jurisdiction)
- Even Lord Pentland's opinion (Starting at 19 in Production 7 of Notice of No Jurisdiction), now cited by both UK and Scottish governments, contains no proof. Erudite though it might seem to anyone unfamiliar with the subject, it is a wearisome repetition of previous unfounded presumption and hearsay.
- No Scottish court has heard any proof that Shetland is part of Scotland.
- I was advised by Mr. Macarthur of the Supreme Court that it was necessary for me to use Form 2 to become an intervener.
- UK Supreme Court Form 2 requires permission from the parties for anyone to intervene in a case.
- Parties are unable to confer jurisdiction on a court if that jurisdiction does not already exist. (2.8 2.10 below)
- Form 2 was therefore inappropriate and the only other option known to me to inform the court of its lack of jurisdiction was to proceed by means of a Notice.
- The court received a Notice of No Jurisdiction regarding the above case at 12:43 on 11 December 2014.
- The Notice was marked 'Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.' and 'To be filed on and for the record.'
- As a matter of courtesy, but not necessity, all parties as known to me at that time were supplied with copies of the Notice, which they all received on 11 December 2014.
- On 12 December, by email, I asked for confirmation from Mr. Macarthur that the documents had been placed on the case file.
- On 15 December I received confirmation that 'Your papers are indeed on the file.'
- On arrival at the court on 18 December 2014, I was told by Louise di Mambro, acting as Registrar that, contrary to my reasonable expectations, the documents had not been placed on the file seen by the judges, but had been placed only on the court record.
- I asked her to ensure the judges were made aware of the documents before the commencement of the hearing.
- She assured me they would be so made aware.
- The hearing started and continued with no request from the judges to the appellant to show the court it had jurisdiction.
- After the hearing had started, Louise di Mambro confirmed to me that she had placed my documents before the judges.
- She later confirmed in writing that the judges had been provided with copies of the documents on the day. (Production 1)
- It is not disputed that the court received the Notice of No Jurisdiction and that all relevant parties were advised. The court cannot now say it was unaware of the contents of said Notice.
- The matter of territorial jurisdiction (whether Shetland is part of Scotland) has been challenged at every level of the Scottish judicial system, as should be well known to all parties and to at least two of the judges in this case. No Scottish court has been shown any proof that Shetland is part of Scotland. All previous judgements, decisions and proceedings in this case have been based on nothing more than presumption and hearsay and are therefore void.
- Sheriffs and judges in the Scottish system have shown themselves willing to ignore their own rules and the legislation in their attempts to avoid facing this issue.
- This is the first time the matter has appeared before the Supreme Court.
- In this case, after the court was challenged on its jurisdiction, it proceeded without hearing and determining that jurisdiction. The court presumed, without question and in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, that it had jurisdiction. This court and all others below it in this case were without jurisdiction, but purported to exercise it. (2.19 below)
- No part of the Notice of No Jurisdiction has been rebutted. On the contrary it has been confirmed by the court that the Notice was received and properly circulated to the relevant officers. (Production 1) Since there has been no rebuttal, it must be presumed that there is no dispute as to its contents.
- There is no prior case history showing that Shetland is part of Scotland.
- "It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2005. (My emphasis).
- "A court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with and decide the rights or interests in such property. In other words, a court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment." Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2005. (My emphasis).
- "No judgment of a court is due process of law if rendered without jurisdiction in the court or without notice to the party." Scott v. McNeal 154 U.S. 34 (1894). (My emphasis).
- "An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity." Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2005. (My emphasis).
- "It is well-settled and needs no authority that where a court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing." Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2005. (My emphasis).
In the absence of jurisdiction, all proceedings by a court are null and void and can be challenged at any time.
- "The burden of proving a valid basis for the assertion of jurisdiction over a non-residential defendant rests with the party seeking to impose jurisdiction" (My emphasis) R.W. Sawant & Co. v. Allied Programs Corp. No. 61403. 111 Ill.2d 304 (1986) 489 N.E.2d 1360
- "where jurisdiction is denied by the defendant, the burden of proving its presence rests on the party asserting it." (My emphasis) Stephens v. Northern Indiana Public Services Co. (1980), 87 III. App.3d 961, 965.
Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the party asserting it.
- "If the court had no jurisdiction, parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on it." Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr on 26 September, 2005. (My emphasis).
- "if however a particular Court does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter and no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court, the parties by their consent and mutual agreement cannot vest jurisdiction in the said Court." Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr on 26 September, 2005. (My emphasis).
- "As a general rule, neither consent nor waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a Court " The Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd vs P. J. Pappu: 1966 AIR 634, 1966 SCR (1) 461. (My emphasis).
The parties to an action cannot give the court jurisdiction if that jurisdiction does not already exist.
- "Court may always raise question of subject matter jurisdiction on appeal and in courts below." U.S. v. Prestenbach, 230 F.3d 780 (2000) (My emphasis).
- "Petitioner has no appeal from either the order of the court refusing to quash the indictment or the overruling of the demurrer, and has therefore petitioned this court [19 Cal.2d 321] for a writ of prohibition to restrain the lower court from proceeding with the trial." and "Let a writ of prohibition issue as prayed." Greenberg v. Superior Court , 19 Cal.2d 319. (My emphasis).
- "But in every instance the appellate court issued a writ of prohibition to restrain the lower court from interfering with the administrative proceeding." Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal , 17 Cal.2d 280. (My emphasis).
- "In this original proceeding petitioners seek a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent court and judge from proceeding with their trial" and "It is ordered that the demurrer to the amended petition be overruled and that the writ of prohibition be issued as prayed for". Jackson v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.2d 350. (My emphasis).
The Supreme Court can and must overturn void decisions of a lower court.
- "When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. " Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. (My emphasis).
- "Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." 474 F. 2d 215 - Joyce v. United States. (My emphasis).
The court may not proceed without first hearing proof of its jurisdiction and must dismiss the action if there is the slightest doubt and it has not been shown proof of its jurisdiction.
- "a court may dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910. (My emphasis).
A court may dismiss a case at any stage.
- "Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215. (My emphasis).
The court cannot ignore a challenge to its jurisdiction.
- "[1c] When, however, the trial court has heard and determined [28 Cal.2d 465] the jurisdictional challenge, and has decided in favor of its own jurisdiction, and then proceeds to act, that is, to try the case on its merits, the situation is entirely different. It then may be properly claimed that a court without jurisdiction is purporting to exercise it. At this stage, jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction has been exercised, and the higher courts will, in an appropriate case, restrain the lower court from acting in excess of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Greenberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.2d 319 [121 P.2d 713]; Abelleia v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 [109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715]; Jackson v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.2d 350 [74 P.2d 243, 113 A.L.R. 1422].)" (My emphasis). Rescue Army v. Municipal Court , 28 Cal.2d 460 (1946)
In the face of a challenge, the court must hear and determine that challenge. If not, it is a court without jurisdiction, purporting to exercise it.
- "The separate but related issue of whether and when sovereignty in the sense of dominium and right to redeem Orkney and Shetland were lost and dominium was acquired by Scotland or Great Britain has not been tested before any international tribunal." The Laws of Scotland, Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia 1989, Vol.24, 328.
The direct question of whether Shetland is part of Scotland or the UK has never been tested in the courts.
- "A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud." McNally v. UNITED STATES No. 86-234.483 U.S. 350 (1987).
If a public official deliberately conceals material information (in this case lack of jurisdiction), he (or she) is guilty of fraud.
- "The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as to their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they 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. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court" Lord Denning, Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd.  A.C. 273, HL. (My emphasis).
The Supreme Court, having decided to proceed without hearing evidence of its jurisdiction after having been notified of a lack of jurisdiction, its officers (including the judges) are in contempt of court.
YOU ARE NOTIFIED:
- That there is no proof that Shetland is part of Scotland. (1.5 and productions 3,4,5,6 and 7 of Notice of No Jurisdiction)
- That courts at every level in the Scottish system, both civil and criminal (except the Inner House of the Court of Session) have been challenged on their jurisdiction. (1.4 and productions 3,4,5,6 and 7 of Notice of No Jurisdiction)
- That, when challenged, no Scottish court has heard any proof that Shetland is part of Scotland. (1.5 and productions 3,4,5,6 and 7 of Notice of No Jurisdiction)
- That Scottish courts have repeatedly acted ultra vires by proceeding in the absence of jurisdiction. (1.5 and productions 3,4,5,6 and 7 of Notice of No Jurisdiction)
- That the above mentioned Notice of No Jurisdiction was addressed directly to the court.
- That the parties, being unable to endow the court with jurisdiction, were notified for courtesy only. (2.8 2.10)
- That jurisdiction being a matter independent of the parties, the use of Form 2 as an application to the court, requiring as it did the permission of the parties, was inappropriate and irrelevant. (2.8 2.10)
- That proceeding by way of a Notice was the correct and only way to bring to the attention of the court its lack of jurisdiction.
- That the court, having received the Notice, cannot ignore it. (2.18)
- That court officials, upon receiving the said Notice, were obliged to notify the judges accordingly at the earliest opportunity. (1.7 and 2.21 2.22)
- That there was ample time for them to carry out that duty between their receipt of the documents on 11 December 2014 and the hearing on 18 December.
- That failure in that duty would amount to contempt of court and fraud. (2.21 2.22)
- That the the persons acting as judges upon being notified that they had no jurisdiction, had no lawful option but to halt proceedings until they heard proof of their jurisdiction from the appellant. (2.6 2.7)
- That their actions in proceeding further in the knowledge of even the slightest doubt about their jurisdiction were ultra vires. (2.15 2.16)
- That proceeding with the hearing in the knowledge of a challenge to the court's jurisdiction was reckless, in contempt of court and fraudulent. (2.21 2.22)
- That officers of the court, having been notified that the court had no jurisdiction, have acted ultra vires, fraudulently and in contempt of court. (2.21 2.22)
- That the court, having proceeded after its jurisdiction had been challenged and without having heard proof of its jurisdiction from the appellant, was 'a court without jurisdiction purporting to exercise it'. (2.19) Those proceedings are void and of no effect. (2.1 2.7)
- In the absence of jurisdiction the court must dismiss the appeal and all prior proceedings in this matter. (2.11 2.14)
- In the absence of jurisdiction, the court must pronounce as unlawful the action of the Scottish government in granting the original permission. (1.1 1.3)
- If the court decides to redeem itself by convening a hearing to decide the matter of jurisdiction, I claim the right to be party to such a hearing.
YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED
It is my reasonable expectation that you accept the above to be true in every respect unless I hear from you to the contrary within twenty-one (21) days from the court's receipt of this Notice. Rebuttal of any single point will not negate the whole Notice or any other part of it. After such period this Notice will be placed in the public domain.
All callings not answered will be founded upon.
Signed and sealed,
Stuart: Hill, a man, sovereign without the states of Scotland or the United Kingdom and procurator in rem suam.
Copies by Royal Mail Signed For to the other men acting as judges and to:
R&R Urquart Solicitors, F.A.O. Jamie Whittle, for Sustainable Shetland.
Scottish Government Legal Directorate, F.A.O. Murray Sinclair, Solicitor to the Scottish Government for the Scottish Ministers.
Gillespie Macandrew LLP, F.A.O. Colin Hamilton and John Stirling, for Viking Energy Partnership.