Ocraquoy
Cunningsburgh
Shetland
Outwith, but near UK
06-February-2015
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:
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 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)
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.
YOU
ARE NOTIFIED
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.
|