Re: Anybody there?

Hi

The issues come before the Court of Session at 11am in Edinburgh today,=
 Monday.

The signing does not matter, except for the=20
primary school sub-plot between Johnson and his fanbois.

I would predict that there will not be an issue=20
of contempt over sending the required letter on=20
Saturday.  A letter in the  exact terms specified=20
was sent on Johnson's authority and conveyed by=20
UK government staff to the Commission, who=20
immediately accepted it as the valid letter send=20
by the Prime Minister, which they would deal with.

Job done.

The childish behaviour ("I never touched it") was=20
spin for the servile squad of Sunday newspaper journalists.

The question that will concern the Court of=20
Session is the second letter, which appears to=20
flout completely the undertakings made to the=20
court, and the PM's duty under Padfield, and to=20
make the Law Officers position difficult.

The Court may take additional notice of other=20
aspects of Johnson's conduct which could have been egregious in context

- personally signing the unimportant breach=20
letter to cite his position, leaving the important letter unsigned

- sending the breach letter direct, and having=20
the important letter send by the PERMREP

- having staff derisorily describe the important=20
letter as a "photocopy" (presumably of the Benn=20
Act page).  But it wasn't. forensically.     It was retyped - just not=
 signed.

(None of this in code, so far as known)

Duncan


di, who last week had the clearest possible=20
assurance by the :Law Officers that Johnson would no nothing to frus










At 20/10/2019   14:57, Mark Lomas wrote:
>The Financial Times came to a similar conclusion regarding Scottish law.
>
>While reporting on the recent Court of Session=20
>ruling, which the government appealed to the=20
>Supreme=C2 Court and lost, the FT sought legal advice on what might follow.
>It concluded that if either a statute or a court=20
>ruling obliges somebody to sign or lodge a=20
>document, the Court of Session has the power to rule that it has been done=
 -
>the court does not need to rule that it should be done.
>
>That brings two thoughts to mind:
>1) a signature in Scotland is like=20
>Schroedinger's cat - a document with no visible=20
>signature may become signed if you ask the Court=20
>of Session whether it was signed.
>2) is it perjury=C2 to tell a court that you did=20
>not sign a document after the Court of Session rules that you did?
>
>Many news sources have reported that Boris=20
>Johnson has sent an unsigned letter to the European Commission.
>If the Court of Session were to rule that the=20
>Benn Act requires a signature then those reports=20
>would retrospectively become untrue.
>
>Conclusion: I suggest that Boris also signed the=20
>document yesterday in Scotland, provided someone=20
>later asks the Court of Session whether he did.
>
>
>On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 06:44, Peter Gutmann=20
><<mailto:pgut001-kVWAYfnMFF2W8ldZTk/[email protected]>pgut001-kVWAYfnMFF2W8ldZTk/[email protected]> wrote:
>Clive D.W. Feather <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> writes:
> >Arguably, since the law requires the letter to=20
> be written, it could be deemed
> >to have been written.
>The Australians have this set up much better:
>=C2  [...] the Commissioner may [...]:
>=C2  (b)=C2  treat a particular event that did not=20
>actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
>
>=C2  =C2  (i)=C2  having happened at a particular time; and
>=C2  =C2  (ii)=C2  having involved particular action by a particular=
 entity; and
>=C2  (c)=C2  treat a particular event that actually happened as:
>=C2  =C2  (i)=C2  having happened at a time different=20
>from the time it actually happened; or
>=C2  =C2  (ii)=C2  having involved particular action=20
>by a particular entity (whether or not the event=20
>actually involved any action by that entity).
>So Boris definitely wrote the letter and signed=20
>it, yesterday, at noon.=C2  At least in Australia.
>Peter.


Dr Duncan Campbell      IPTV Ltd
Brighton                UK

Website :  http://www.duncancampbell.org
Twitter    :  @dcampbell_iptv
Tel         :  +44 1273 818045  (01273 818045)
Mob       :  +44 7870 597178  (07870 597178)





Dr Duncan Campbell      IPTV Ltd
Brighton                UK

Website :  http://www.duncancampbell.org
Twitter    :  @dcampbell_iptv
Tel         :  + 44 1273 818045  (01273 818045)
s=20