Meads in Scotland- Watson vs the Lord Advocate

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

The_Nidhogg
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 9:01 pm

Meads in Scotland- Watson vs the Lord Advocate

Post by The_Nidhogg »

I had originally intended to explore the bizarre pettiness revolving round parking in Edinburgh, however I think it would be more profitable to highlight the première discussion of OPCA ideas by the Scottish courts.

To any Sovs stumbling across this post: this case is vitally important in dismissing your ideas: please read it and the canadian judgement it cites. Unless you can find a court of session or supreme court ruling explicitly overruling this case fee schedules will not work in Scotland. Also you cannot unconsent to laws. laws acts like the 1971 drugs act are not commercial or administrative acts- they apply to everyone. This what common law is: law created by precedent and in our country that means no fee schedules and also (in case there was any doubt) acts and asps are laws.

Read the judgement here: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fi ... 7769853638

the canadian judgement which is being viewed as persuasive in scotalnd is found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... qb571.html

it establishes the common law of canada as also not being freeman friendly so how bout you lovely lads and lassies shy away from the Serpant King and Dean Clifford eh? If they don't understand the law of their own country I would hesitate before trying to apply their product to our wee patch.

Back to watson.

So whats the story in balamory then? Well for starters it's not in balamory but Glasgow. I was going to paraphrase, but why bother when the sheriff did such a good job! :)
2 In or about December 2008 the pursuer was present when premises were subject to a police search as it was suspected that herbal cannabis was being produced. He was arrested and charged. Over the next three years or so, he spent a total of 112 days on remand, although not consecutively. The matter eventually went to trial on indictment in December 2011; ultimately the pursuer's plea of not guilty was accepted by the crown.
No problem eh? I can't find details of that case, but then again I didn't look particularly thoroughly I'll be in Glasgow next ,month and will have a better look then :). I suspect given the long delay from 2008-2011 that those 112 days were contempt of court the result of freeman magic. But thats a purely unsubstantiated guess :). I notice the crown accepted his not guilty plea- I would guess it was a trifling amount and 112 days is far more than a guilty sentence would have earned him so...victory?

What's not a guess is that following his adventure Mr Watson submitted a NOI and a Claim of Right stating that as he was not subject to commercial acts he should never have been charged under the misuse of drugs act 1971 and proceeded to sue the Lord Advocate, the Procurator Fiscal Glasgow and two Chief Constables for £6.6 million pounds. Here is the meat of the reasoning of the judgement, sovs, if you do not wish to read the entire judgement at least read this!
Discussion and basis for decision
The document; its provenance and enforceability.

57 In or about 22nd January 2009, the pursuer, who designs himself as David Andrew Watson of the Family Stirling, signed a document in the presence of a Notary Public. It was a document with a radical intent, purporting to relieve him of any obligation to comply with the laws of the land on the basis that law required consent and he proposed to withhold his consent. The flavour can be obtained from some brief excerpts of the document, which is not always a model of clarity or intelligibility.
“Whereas it is my understanding in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist …
Whereas it is my understanding that human beings in the United Kingdom have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed …
Whereas it is my understanding that if anyone does revoke or deny consent, they exist free of government control and statutory restraints …
Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties that I David. William-Watson; of the family Stirling, a Freeman-on-the-land do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations and restrictions and maintain all rights at all to trade exchange or barter.
Furthermore I claim the right to lawfully: … 4, Exercise my right to possess cultivate or use medicinally any plant of the genus cannibis (Sic) …
Furthermore I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by police officers government principles or agents or justice system participants … £2500 here our or portion thereof if I am handcuffed transported incarcerated were subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and notarised consent …
Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within 10 days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the notary office herein provided no later than 10 days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service …
Failure to register a dispute against claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgement and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or to Act against My Self Freeman-on-the-land David-William-Watson: of the family Stirling.

58 After execution, the pursuer sent copies of the document to a number of prominent members of the community including the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his own Member of Parliament. He sent copies to the Lord Advocate and Steven House, then Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police. (Such service was not vouched but for the purposes of this debate I am prepared to hold that the documents were intimated)

59 The copy document was apparently accompanied by a request that each recipient respond if they did not agree with its terms. (Again this was not vouched but I am prepared to hold there was such a request).He received no responses. He took from that lack of response that none of the recipients challenged his view and that he was accordingly free of any charges which might arise under statute, and able to recover sums in terms of the purported fee schedule..

60 If his position about the provenance and enforceability of the document is correct it is for the pursuer, to say the least, a powerful and valuable document, entirely altering the legal landscape which he inhabits. I will return to consideration of the effect of this document from paragraph [69] onwards.

Context
61 wish to make some observations about the pursuer's self-professed status of Freeman- of-the-land. So far as I am aware there has been no significant involvement of persons professing such a status with the law courts in Scotland.

62 Other jurisdictions have had more exposure. There is sufficient overlap between the approach adopted by the pursuer in this case and matters referred to by Associate Chief Justice A D Brooke in the very recent case of Meads v Meads 2012 ABQB 571 that I have found his observations to be helpful. Mr Meads was a party in a divorce action who approached the case in a way similar to the pursuer in this case. The decision includes an assessment of the import of such an approach.

63 1 have of course approached this matter entirely on the basis of the Law of Scotland; however I have been able to harvest some of the language and observations in an attempt to put the document upon which the action is based, into context.

64 I regard the Meads decision as helpful because of the following similarities between the cases dealt with by the Canadian courts and the pursuer's approach. There are a number of indicators which identify the pursuer with the movement described in that case. All paragraph references are to the Mends case

65 The pursuer adopts a curious, stylised and mannered name motif, David-AndewWatson: of the family Stirling. (paragraph [203] — [209]). Legalese peppers the both document and the pleadings. (After the signature and designation of the Notary Public, it says “Use of a Notary is for attestation and verification purposes and does not constitute adhesion, contract or change in status in any manner. All rights reserved without prejudice”). Justice Brooke describes a form of document which purports to “unilaterally foist a string of gibberish obligations on others”. (paragraph [40]).He describes materials which have no force or meaning in law other than to indicate an intention on a litigant's part to evade lawful obligations and the authority of the Court and the government. (paragraph [44])

66 Reference is made to litigants having particular status or characteristic such as being a Freeman-on-the-land or a sovereign man (paragraph [221]). Freemen-on-the-Land believe they can ‘opt out’ of societal obligations and do as they like (Paragraph [173]). Documents from such litigants feature declarations concerning service such as “service to agent is service to principal”, designed to expand the notification functions of the materials relied upon (Paragraph [225])

67 There is a reliance on Black's Law Dictionary, (referred to by the pursuer in Article II of condescendence (Paragraph [229])); there are assertions that a unilateral declaration of some form may defeat state and court authority (Paragraph [317]); such declarations often include provisions called “fee schedules” (Paragraph [448]); such declarations sometimes say that the recipient has a certain window of time to respond and disagree, otherwise they are held to have agreed to the terms of the declaration (Paragraphs [450] and [474])

68 The pursuer's approach in this case contains all of these elements, and more. For example during his submissions he made reference to “enticement to slavery,” a purported crime to which reference is made in Meads ; he uses the term peace officers to describe inter alia police officers; he refers to the Magna Carta. These references can hardly be coincidental. He has no doubt been influenced, or informed, or even inspired by similar declarations or approaches; he has certainly been exposed to them. It is unfortunate that he had not become aware of the hopelessness of such an approach.The action is manifestly ill conceived on a number of levels and is bound to fail.

69 I deal firstly with the pursuer's principal submission, that the document affords a basis to recover £6.66 million because of his incarceration. I can do no better than to adopt the language of Justice Brooke, who described material such as the document as “foisted unilateral agreements”. That description is apt.

The probative nature of the document

70 Contrary to the pursuer's submission, and apparent understanding, the probative nature of a document goes to authenticity of execution rather than to magically investing the contents of the document with unchallengeable legal effect. In his textbook on Evidence, Professor Davidson puts it as follows at paragraph 6.14, dealing with deeds executed prior to 1st August 1995 when the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 (the 1995 Act) came into force
A probative writing is one which requires no further proof of its own authenticity. To achiever probative status it has to be subscribed at the end by the granter and by at least two witnesses whose designations appear beside their signatures or in a testing clause
Significantly he says at paragraph 6.18
It may be added that the fact that writing is probative does not mean it is immune from challenge … probative status merely means that a writing is taken to be authentic without further proof.

71 Professor Davidson looked at the position as regulated by the 1995 Act where the recommendations of the Scottish law Commission were implemented in relation to what they described as self-proving status for documents (although that term is not employed in the 1995 Act); essentially the same position is reached, where s.3 provides that if certain formalities are met, including attestation, the document shall be presumed to have been subscribed by the granter

72 Proceeding on the basis, as I am prepared to do (although it is by no means certain), that the document is a probative deed, all that is established is the authenticity of the execution. The effect of this can be demonstrated by reference to the document itself. The document (in a self-proving way) bears to have been signed on the 26 January 2009. No further evidence is required for that fact to be established. (The deed was accordingly executed after his arrest in December 2008).

73 There is accordingly no legal basis for asserting that the document produced proves itself as to the legal efficacy of its contents.

Whether the document can create legal obligations

74 The pursuer's assertion is that the document, having been intimated but not responded to, brings into force a contact. This is an example of a “foisted unilateral agreement” as defined by Justice Brooke. The law of Scotland prohibits enforcement of this kind of foisted unilateral agreement.

75 In McBryde on Contact 3rd edition, the learned author says the following at paragraph 6-02 (I paraphrase but consider that the primary definition is preserved)
Consent is the basis of contract … The minds may be in agreement, but there is no binding obligation until in some way the intentions of the parties are communicated to each other … ”So then”, said Stair “an offer accepted is a contract because it is the deed of two, the offerer and the accepter”

76 Further at paragraphs 6-78 to 6–81 he considers the effect of silence by the offeree. After examining earlier cases which seemed to infer that a doctrine of acceptance inferred from silence was emerging, he states unequivocally
“The contrary is the correct position. Silence implies dissent from the offered terms, or it may be that the offeree did not receive, read or understand the offer …
The result is that the offeree does not need to go to the trouble of refusing an offer. The offeree cannot be forced to incur the expense of buying a stamp or making a telephone call.”

77 Although McBryde acknowledges that that acceptance can be inferred from conduct, that is not argued by the pursuer, nor could be. AdditionallyMcBryde recognises that dealings between parties on an ongoing basis might exceptionally lead to acceptance by silence. No such argument is made, nor could be. The purported contract has no effect.

78 Justice Brooke gives a vivid assessment, at paragraph [463] of Meads , of such a flawed approach.

[F]oisted unilateral agreements feature language that demands its recipient respond or rebut an obligation by a certain deadline. If not, then the agreement proclaims the recipient is bound by its terms, A moment's consideration shows it is absurd that the law would respect that requirement. What if a document was received, but not read within the deadline? What if the document was received by an illiterate person, or one who did not understand the document's meaning? Could they have a ‘meeting of the minds'? Of course not, no more than handing a document to a sheep and saying “By not repudiating this agreement, I may eat you.” establishes a mutual and common intent.
I entirely agree with, and adopt, that analysis.

The import of the document

79 But there is a more fundamental objection; whatever the provenance of the document and even if on some, as yet undetermined, basis the pursuer can point to a consensus, the pursuer's position in reliance on the document is manifestly unstateable; no citizen can remove himself from the legal framework within which society is regulated. To paraphrase the wording of Justice Brooke at paragraph [318] of Maids, if the pursuer does not wish to be governed by the laws of Scotland, he need only leave Scotland and break his ties with the jurisdiction. Otherwise he cannot evade his responsibilities. The proposition that he can is absurd and nonsensical. The document is legally illiterate.

Consequences of the document's unenforceability

80 Given the concession which the pursuer made, that his action is predicated entirely on enforceability of the document, my conclusions are sufficient to dispose of the action and to grant decree of dismissal.

Issues of competence, relevance and specification

81 In the event that I am wrong about the enforceability of the document, or that the concession made is withdrawn in another court (and in deference to Mr Sheldon's careful and focused argument) I wish to make a few observations about the action otherwise

82 The action begins with a fundamental flaw in the instance. The failure to name the second named defender, and conflation of the responsibilities of Stephen House and Campbell Corrigan are matters which themselves would have given rise to dismissal. Although on one view, the identity of the Procurator Fiscal is not difficult to ascertain, that is not the test. The observations in McLaren are apt so far as the second defender is concerned, and the conflation of the two named individuals as third defenders gives rise to the same result.

83 I am entirely satisfied that the Lord Advocate enjoys absolute immunity in relation to the conduct of proceedings on indictment as do any members of the Procurator Fiscal service who conduct such a prosecution in the name of the Lord Advocate. Hester is ample authority for that uncontroversial proposition.

84 If there were to be a claim against a named Procurator Fiscal, or a Procurator Fiscal Depute (and there is no such claim), such a claim can only succeed on the basis of averments of malice, and facts and circumstances which would justify such averments.

85 There is nothing approaching that in the pleadings as presently drawn. As recorded from Mr Sheldon's submissions, the pursuer makes a number of points about deficiencies, as he sees them, in the prosecution. None of these imply malice, nor the “oblique motives” anticipated in the authorities. However imperfect the prosecution may have been, with alleged reliance on flawed evidence or inadequate investigation, the circumstances are very far from supporting any claim of malice.

86 So far as the averments against the third defenders are concerned, there were no averments which would justify an implication that that the been an arrest without warrant or without reasonable cause; the averments of incompetence or the ignoring of evidence fell far short of averments of malice. Dahl is authority for that conclusion.

87 The pleadings contained much factual information which was irrelevant to any claim which might be made for an action of this nature. The pleadings were both irrelevant and lacking in specification to an extent which would justify dismissal.

88 For all these reasons, I have dismissed the action and found the pursuer liable to the defender in the expenses of the action.
So there you have it: the Scots case referencing the stellar work that is Meads v Meads.

I don't really have further comment- NOI, fee schedules, and claims of right do not have any effect in scotland. That is the common law position. Though I will return to the claim of right and the declaration of Arbroath in a future entry on the heaving, byzantine mess that is the scottish constitution.

Yours,

The Nidhogg
Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:09 pm

Re: Meads in Scotland- Watson vs the Lord Advocate

Post by Fmotlgroupie »

Poor Associate Chief Justice Rooke, his fame makes its way to Canada's mother country but only under the pseudonym Justice Brooke.

Thanks Nidhogg for bringing a whole new national dimension to the Freeman-watching world!
The_Nidhogg
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: Meads in Scotland- Watson vs the Lord Advocate

Post by The_Nidhogg »

Oh dear poor Sheriff Cubie- does he not know that by referencing Justice Brooke not Justice Rooke he is infact not referencing the correct meads v meads therefore is in dishonour and guilty of fraud and owes Watson 12Gabijillion moniez for unlawful incompetence and me 56 mechabazillion moniez for making me look bad! /sov

but seriously that's embarrassing, I'm tempted to change it but I don't want to start tampering with Judgements even to fix typo's- slippery slope and all that!

:oops: :oops: :oops: :thinking:
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Meads in Scotland- Watson vs the Lord Advocate

Post by grixit »

I believe we are seeing Common Law in action.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4