Outwith, but near UK


By Royal Mail Signed For Delivery

No. KF087551931GB

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 Default

Notice to come into full effect on 13 February 2015 in the absence of a complete rebuttal of Notice of Void Proceedings dated 29 December 2014

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 have received a letter written on your instructions from Louise di Mambro. The letter contains no rebuttal of the statements and allegations made in my Notice of Void Proceedings dated 29 December 2014. It simply repeats a previous insubstantial reply and appears to be the final word on the matter.

Issuance of this Notice does not mean that the time limit given in my 31 January Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure has expired – you still have until 13 February 2015 to rebut my statements if you wish to, but, in view of the fact that an invalid and spurious decision is intended to be published on 9 February – instead of March as widely publicised, you leave me no option but to issue this notice before its due date. I have highlighted paragraphs 13 – 17 below to emphasise the serious criminal nature of your actions to date. Proceeding any further in this matter by issuing a spurious decision in the absence of jurisdiction will further compound your crime.

I have received what I take to be a final reply with no rebuttal to my Notice of Fault dated 31 January. It the absence of a full rebuttal 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)

By failing to rebut these statements you accept their truth in every respect.

Your failure to make substantive reply makes you subject to estoppel or personal bar preventing you from denying the truth of these statements in future proceedings.

All callings not answered will be founded upon.


Signed and sealed,

Signature and seal on posted version.

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.