Arrogance or corruption at Crown Office?

Scottish Peoples Mission
Old Schoolyard, DUNVEGAN, Isle of Skye, Scotland
Tel: +44 (0) 1470 521 550/E-mail: spm@pictland.freeserve.co.uk

1. An ‘Assignation Statement’, for the purpose of statutory identification of the concessionaire and publicising the civil assignation of ministerial rights to that person, was not supplied to the Court at any time during prosecutions of the public, and,

2.Crown Production 16, is not an official document of state, but a compilation of photo-copies of pages from civil contracts, particularly the so-called ‘Development Agreement’. It does not in fact represent the written consent of the Secretary of State in substitution for proper statutory identification of the entitled concessionaire.

3.The identification of the concessionaire and of his principal share-holders, even on the unsigned, undated sheets eventually claimed by your department to be in compliance with statutory requirements, was incorrect at the date of opening of the tolls, the share-holders having been changed as early as January 1992.

Return to opening page	.
Arrogance or Corruption at Crown Office? On Tuesday 10th January 06 the article ‘Crown office lied over Skye Bridge - proof’ was published. Below follows Robbie the Pict’s letter of 10th January to Tavish Scott MSP. Hopefully it may prompt a full response. That said from direct experience with the acumen of the Lord Advocate and his ability to deceive himself without proper impartial critical appraisal (as in my vexatious litigant episode) I remain unconvinced that a meaningful final determination will be swiftly reached. Scottish Peoples Mission Old Schoolyard, DUNVEGAN, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel: +44 (0) 1470 521 550/E-mail: spm@pictland.freeserve.co.uk Tavish Scott MSP, Minister of Transport Electronic copy only – original posted 10 January 2006 Dear Mr Scott, MALFEASANCE IN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SCOTTISH OFFICE 1991-2 As you will know this office acts on behalf of persons wrongly convicted for questioning the legitimacy of the regime. You have previously chosen to ignore our arguments and have instead allowed a Keith Main, in our opinion himself criminally implicated, to answer on your behalf. However, the recent admissions by the former Procurator Fiscal at Dingwall, that the regime paperwork was never produced in original or complete form for examination in the Courts, is of some significance. The adopted defence was that there was a reasonable excuse for failing to pay, in that the collectors failed to produce any indication of there being statutory identification of them as proper and lawful concessionaires, with the assigned right to charge tolls on the A87. It is now the public opinion on Skye that Mr Hingston has confirmed our claim of there being reasonable doubt about the safety of convictions. Following recent discussions, this office has been asked to make the following request of you, in the capacity of Minister responsible for the department in question, regardless of any subsequent changes of its name: Will you now please write to the Procurator Fiscal at Dingwall, Mr Roderick W. Urquhart, admitting the following truths on behalf of the department: 1. An ‘Assignation Statement’, for the purpose of statutory identification of the concessionaire and publicising the civil assignation of ministerial rights to that person, was not supplied to the Court at any time during prosecutions of the public, and, 2.Crown Production 16, is not an official document of state, but a compilation of photo-copies of pages from civil contracts, particularly the so-called ‘Development Agreement’. It does not in fact represent the written consent of the Secretary of State in substitution for proper statutory identification of the entitled concessionaire. 3.The identification of the concessionaire and of his principal share-holders, even on the unsigned, undated sheets eventually claimed by your department to be in compliance with statutory requirements, was incorrect at the date of opening of the tolls, the share-holders having been changed as early as January 1992. It is trusted, as a matter of justice and common decency, that Mr Urquhart would then see fit to raise a minute under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. If you do not communicate the above three truths to Mr Urquhart within 21 days of this date, that is by the end of January, this office will report you to the police for aiding and abetting the concealment of fabrication of Crown evidence, a felonious act, based on Mr Keith Main’s actions thus far. Yours sincerely, Robbie the Pict, Director.
meditations	top

Arrogance or Corruption at Crown Office?