Ocraquoy

Cunningsburgh

Shetland

Outwith, but near UK


31-January-2015


By Royal Mail Signed For Delivery

No. AH618500670GB


David Edmond Neuberger aka. Lord Neuberger

c/o The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parliament Square

London SW1P 3BD


Case Number UKSC 2014/0216

Sustainable Shetland v. Scottish Ministers and Viking Energy Partnership.


Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure.

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.



I find it profoundly disturbing that judges in the highest court in the land should ignore the law and proceed to a hearing without jurisdiction.

More than twenty-one days having elapsed with no reply to my Notice of Void Proceedings dated 28 December 2014, you are now at fault. You accept the following to be true and uncontested as stated in said Notice:

  1. 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)

  2. 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)

  3. 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)

  4. 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)

  5. That the above mentioned Notice of No Jurisdiction was addressed directly to the court.

  6. That the parties, being unable to endow the court with jurisdiction, were notified for courtesy only. (2.8 – 2.10)

  7. 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)

  8. 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.

  9. That the court, having received the Notice, cannot ignore it. (2.18)

  10. 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)

  11. 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.

  12. That failure in that duty would amount to contempt of court and fraud. (2.21 – 2.22)

  13. That 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)

  14. That their actions in proceeding further in the knowledge of even the slightest doubt about their jurisdiction were ultra vires. (2.15 – 2.16)

  15. 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)

  16. 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)

  17. 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)

  18. In the absence of jurisdiction the court must dismiss the appeal and all prior proceedings in this matter. (2.11 – 2.14)

  19. 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.


However, as a mark of my forbearance and in the interest of good faith, I am prepared to grant a further ten (10) days from the court’s receipt of this document to allow you to rebut these statements. Failure to make substantive reply within this time will show your acceptance of their truth in every respect.

Failure to make substantive reply within this time will make you subject to estoppel preventing you from denying the truth of these statements.

Rebuttal of any single point will not negate the whole Notice or any other part of it.

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.

3