Correspondence in Lord Advocate v Frost
Letter to Miss Cullen at the Scottish Executive
Letter to D. Flint - Accountant in Bankruptcy
Letter to P Yelland - Law Society
Letter to R Martin QC - Faculty of Advocates
Request for a Public Inquiry
Edenside
Kelso
TD5 7BS
2005-04-10
Vexatious Litigant Petition: the Lord Advocate v Martin Frost
Dear Miss Cullen,
As you may be aware I am an elderly dying man, I state this not to invoke sympathy but to emphasise I believe in what I say. My diplomatic skills have never been my foremost attribute but given recent happenings I dispense with any vestige to political correctness. My requests from you are sought: first under plain human decency and genuine concern and second under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002; the Data Protection Act 1998; and such European Union Directives that apply to the provision of functions between yourselves and private lawyers. Finally please accept this as formal intimation that in the event that you do not conform to my perceived reasonable requests then not only will I seek legal remedy on such failure but I will lodge the appropriate court motions, along with a motion for commission and diligence.
May I have a copy of the record in this petition which reflects the current state of pleadings – for you to now conclude this responsibility of yours is not unreasonable given that some months have elapsed since you long-spooned my last application. Such record to be forwarded by e-mail would be appreciated.
Can you please explain your locus in this action and in particular explain upon what legal basis the Lord Advocate seeks to delegate his powers to you and to your office? Please provide a copy of any delegation made by the Lord Advocate to you. I understand that neither the correct form nor the correct procedure was adopted in my petition – can you explain why?
As you are aware, your department’s correspondence in connection with vexatious litigant proceedings in respect of my business partner Mr John Parkes has been exhibited in the US. In the US your correspondence has been founded on by Cintec International Limited as evidence to infer that we are per se vexatious litigants in all courts, in all jurisdictions, and in all causes. Noted in the US court from your exhibited correspondence is the simple fact that you appear to initiate such vexatious litigant proceedings upon the unfettered request of conflicting third parties without due independent examination of the facts nor proper (or any) consultation or separate intimation to the respondent. In short, since these proceedings are by definition criminal may I request you forward all related correspondence to me and provide me with such information and evidence you hold on me particularly that which displays you conducted (or not) an independent enquiry into the facts and legal procedure prior to raising your petition.
All correspondence, instructions, file notes, memoranda, minutes of meetings and other written or recorded material and communications inclusive of all internal office memoranda, phone records and aides-memoirs kept by or on behalf of the Scottish Executive till to-date, showing or tending to show the nature and extent of the communings between yourselves and such third parties which have communicated with you concerning me.
In the proceedings Frost & Parkes v Cintec International Limited there appears an unreasonable amount of some £5,000 apportioned to Mr Murphy Q.C. which relates to his work done in connection with the preparation of submissions for your vexatious litigation petition against me – did you authorise such or can you explain such?
Finally, there are other issues which I have raised in Vexatious Litigant chapter 10, the Law, found on the front page of the website www.martinfrost.ws . Should you wish an input I would be grateful if such is indicated in your presumed response to this letter.
Yours sincerely
Martin Frost
Edenside
Kelso
TD5 7BS
2005-04-10
Re: Martin Frost and matters pertaining
Dear Mr Flint,
I would be grateful for your input on the below:
Please find enclosed a self evident response letter from Sarah Boyack MSP along with a copy letter from Rt. Hon. A. Darling MP who appears to share her belief. Are they correct in believing that insolvency is a reserved issue? – if so, why is there not uniformity in bankruptcy criteria between England and Scotland and why the Accountant in Bankruptcy’s support for new legislation via the Scottish Parliament? – in short to whom does the Accountant in Bankruptcy report to?
In the proceedings Frost & Parkes v Cintec International Limited there appears an unreasonable amount ‘charged’ by Shepherd & Wedderburn to Martin Frost during the inter regnum period when the Accountant in Bankruptcy was an ‘Interim Trustee to Martin Frost’s estate – I understand that not only should these proceedings not have been continued by Cintec during this period but it is Cintec who should be liable for all costs for their flagrant abuse of insolvency legislation. Is it the intention for the Accountant in Bankruptcy to do something about this issue?
It has been brought to my attention and that of a number of joint IVA and sequestration creditors that the Accountant in Bankruptcy has seen fit to enter into dialogue with representatives of the Unity Trust Bank Plc – while any assistance may be appreciated could you please confirm that all activities and time spent is properly itemised and that with non creditors will not be charged to the sequestrated estate?
Please supply all correspondence, instructions, file notes, memoranda, minutes of meetings and other written or recorded material and communications inclusive of all internal office memoranda, phone records and aides-memoirs kept by or on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy till to-date, showing or tending to show the nature and extent of the communings between her and such third parties which have communicated with her concerning the Lord Advocate’s vexatious litigant proceedings against me.
As appropriate, my requests from you are sought: first under plain human decency and genuine concern and second under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002; the Data Protection Act 1998; and such European Union Directives that apply to the provision of functions between yourselves and private lawyers.
Finally, there are other issues which I have raised in Vexatious Litigant chapter 10, the Law, found on the front page of the website www.martinfrost.ws . Should you wish an input I would be grateful if such is indicated in your presumed response to this letter.
Yours sincerely
Martin Frost
Edenside
Kelso
TD5 7BS
2005-04-10
Re:
Shepherd & Wedderburn
Dear Mr Yelland,
I seek your guidance, once Shepherd & Wedderburn acted for me in a number of issues. In the matter of John Bulman we fell out over a settlement that they entered into on my behalf. – I rejected their settlement and obtained a highly improved conclusion. Regrettably, thereafter, there has been much bad blood.
From 2003 Shepherd & Wedderburn has acted for a firm called Cintec International Limited – in 2004 on behalf of Cintec International Limited and it is said in response to indirect prompting by Lady Smith and Lord Cullen they prompted the Lord Advocate to raise vexatious litigant proceedings against me – such being due to be heard in October 2005. Central to Shepherd & Wedderburn’s complaint to the Lord Advocate is the John Bulman episode.
I request from you:
a)What is the position of the Law
Society over client confidentiality in this matter?
b)Am I, as a past client,
entitled to inspect those files involving me over this vexatious issue
– noting that (i) on exiting as a client I settled all accounts in full
and (ii) Shepherd & Wedderburn has allowed part of their private
interchange of letters with the Lord Advocate to be selectively
exhibited in the US courts to my possible detriment?
Finally, there are other issues which I have raised in Vexatious Litigant chapter 10, the Law, found on the front page of the website www.martinfrost.ws . Should you wish an input I would be grateful if such is indicated in your presumed response to this letter.
Yours sincerely
Martin Frost
Edenside
Kelso
TD5 7BS
2005-04-10
Dear Mr Martin,
In October 2005 I have two causes before the Court of Session, one involves the recall of my sequestration, and the second involves vexatious litigant proceedings brought against me by the Lord Advocate.
In respect of my sequestration – Sheriff TAK Drummond signed the initial warrant, Mr L Murphy Q.C. acts for the petitioning creditor Cintec International Ltd, and Lord Carloway pronounced a strange opinion – I am aware that all three parties made uncomplimentary and I believe untrue statements concerning me during the Eirlys Smith, Advocate, suspension saga. It is my intention to make use of such documents and transcripts that I may have access to in the Eirlys Smith debacle – in the interest of justice can you confirm the Faculty of Advocates concurrence?
In respect of my sequestration and vexatious litigant proceedings Mr L Murphy Q.C. has in my opinion wrongly sought to bill his time into the cause Frost & Parkes v Cintec International Limited. I would appreciate if this matter could be clarified without the necessity of me progressing matters further.
Finally, there are other issues which I have raised in Vexatious Litigant chapter 10, the Law, found on the front page of the website www.martinfrost.ws . Should you wish an input I would be grateful if such is indicated in your presumed response to this letter.
Yours sincerely
Martin Frost
I suspect insider dealing and cronyism with accompanied dishonesty among senior members of the judiciary, Lord Cullen and Lady Smith to name two, and the law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn.
I would appreciate your view on how I should seek to mollify my perception. Before my concerns are rejected as unfounded may I remind you that even paranoids can have enemies. My anxiety is shared with a number of others who like me seek a public inquiry into these issues. Simply put there are those who say that most of my current woes are due to bad and malicious actions by untouchable legal mandarins.
May I give you a flavour of my worry:
Mr Iain Smith, clerk first to Lord Ross, then clerk to Lord Cullen (currently Lord President) and now clerk to Lord Gill (currently Lord Justice Clerk) was (while simultaneously working as a clerk to Lord Ross) employed by me as a director of London and Edinburgh which company engaged and traded in litigation and dispute resolution. Upon an accusation from me of financial irregularity concerning his involvement in my business, Iain Smith was suspended from work, re-instated and then subsequently his wife Eirlys Smith, my counsel and trustee was suspended from the Faculty of Advocates. I was effectively blackballed from securing independent legal advice. Not unsurprising Mr Iain Smith continued to bad mouth me to Lords, Ross, Cullen and Gill.
In 2003, I together with my partner John Parkes raised a patent action in the Court of Session – contrary to accepted cross border litigation practice the English High court in London high jacked the proceedings – yet such high jacking was implemented with the perceived concurrence of Lord Gill (this circumstance, perhaps not the most conducive to the majesty of Scottish courts, I can accept as impartial by Lord Gill) – I cannot however accept the second interchange between the High court and the Court of Session as being proper. Namely, Mr Parkes and I lost the action before Mr Justice Laddie in London’s Patent High Court but before issuing his judgement Mr Laddie secured some background information on me from the Court of Session – such information originally emanated from Mr Iain Smith. This information is believed to have coloured Mr Laddie’s judgement who took a very hard line upon me prior to an independent authority advising and Mr Justice Laddie accepting his error.
Upon the untaxed English award of costs by Mr Justice Laddie I was sequestrated by Cintec’s Scottish lawyers, Shepherd & Wedderburn, in I believe ‘iffy’ circumstances involving the same players as were involved in the Mr & Mrs Smith dispute above – namely, Sheriff TAK Drummond who signed the initial sequestration warrant; Mr L Murphy Q.C. acts for the petitioning creditor Cintec International Ltd; and Lord Carloway who guillotined my pleadings upon my sequestration recall petition – I am aware that all three parties made uncomplimentary and I believe untrue statements concerning me during the Eirlys Smith, Advocate, investigation and suspension saga. Further concern is the involvement of Lady Smith (wife of the senior partner of Shepherd & Wedderburn) and Lord Cullen in the background who appear not only to project their disgruntled views about me but have made some perceived dubious and indeed perceived contrary to statute decisions against me.
To shut me up and to prevent me from seeking redress in the courts Mr Murphy Q.C. and Shepherd & Wedderburn, prompted lawyer Miss Cullen of the Scottish Executive to raise and obtain an ex-parte vexatious litigation order against me from Lord Cullen – on which a hearing is now set down for October of this year. I am advised that Miss Cullen is a relative of Lord Cullen – I am advised that solicitor Miss Ross who worked for Shepherd & Wedderburn on my sequestration is a relative of Lord Ross who I had previous stated aided Mr Iain Smith on a mortgage fraud against the Midland Bank.
In similar vein there are many, many more co-incidences and strange happenings as narrated above. I appreciate statistical co-incidence but there comes a time when such accumulation is not possible without the combination of people combining together with the intention of causing me economic harm. In short, what I am saying is that by lawful means or not, many if not all of the above have conspired together with the predominant motive or intention of causing me economic harm.
Finally, there are other issues which I have raised in Lady Smith and Vexatious Litigant sections found on the front page of the website www.martinfrost.ws . I would be grateful if you would advise me upon what course of action I should take.
Yours sincerely
Martin Frost
Edenside
Kelso
TD5 7BS
2005-04-10