Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Postby somenick » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:40 pm

I have just been on to the phone to a couple of Scottish Notaries regarding demands from a debt collection agency. The first one said I needed a solicitor, not a notary, as he didn't deal with Court related issues. I said that no CONTROVERSY had transpired on my part so how could I be taken to Court? He said he would decline to comment on the Courts procedures (to which my response was to laugh and say, "fair enough"), but that generally people are taken to Court "on the nod". When I mentioned a stamp of dishonour he told me he hasn't used one in a VERY long time...

This is strange because the second notary I spoke to told me that Scottish Law is different to English Law and that she did not "recognise" what I was talking about when I mentioned a "stamp of dishonour". I sought clarification by asking something like "so, you don't carry stamps of dishonour and stamps of protest?". She said "no".

Something else I found out to day is that in Scotland, a Notary has to be a Solicitor too, unlike in England where a Notary need only be a Notary (and Solicitors first oath is to the Courts, then the Public, then the Client).

"Magna Carta never applied in Scotland, and the writ of habeas corpus, which was standardised in England under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, has no meaning in Scotland. It was not until 1887 that the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act introduced the equivalent requirements for a prompt trial. Ireland had its own Habeas Corpus Act in 1782." - http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/takingliberties/staritems/21magnacarta.html
Last edited by somenick on Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Magna Carta never applied in Scotland, and the writ of habeas corpus, standardised in England under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, has no meaning in Scotland.
User avatar
somenick
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:49 pm

Re: Scottish vs English Notaries

Postby lone wolf » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:20 pm

I have found through the Notay Society web site http://www.thenotariessociety.org.uk/ that its the Church of England Archbishop of Cantabury, Westminster Abby in London who is at the top of the tree here. http://www.facultyoffice.org.uk/

There is more research to be done however, into such things as the London Scrivens Notaries, etc...all we need is one who has not been decieved and or intimidated by the law society to put rules before the Law.

I am going for three witnesses for the notice i just posted on this forum, and then will endeavour to search for a Notary who will remain in a Common Law Jurisdiction without fear.

And we are lawfully empowered to choose our own representatives are we not? therefore we can lawfully upon a claim of right form our own Notary Society and swear in our own Notaries. Once we design and impliment our own law school.

All feedback welcom.

Kind Regards,
lw
I am that i am....attempting to listen to the silence, and gaze upon the empty space, to feel my inner body, just to be, to be here and now, Now I can take action thats truth, being, love, peace freedom and joy
User avatar
lone wolf
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Postby somenick » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:39 pm

Scottish Law Agents Society

http://www.slas.co.uk/news_detail.php?newsID=691&slas=227b867e24170a32d77974f79c21ed89

The following article was written by Walter Semple and published in the Scottish Review online on 27th October 2009. Walter writes as follows:-

EXTERNAL OWNERSHIP OF LAW FIRMS IN SCOTLAND

A Legal Services Bill has been introduced to the Scottish Parliament. It would allow law firms in Scotland to be owned by persons not qualified to practice law and would allow solicitors to enter into business with other professionals. High standards of professional ethics are essential to the effective delivery of legal services by solicitors. The Bill claims to support these high standards by introducing a device to ensure that the core values of solicitors are maintained in the new regime. The core values include maintaining independence, avoiding conflicts of interest and ensuring that information given to solicitors by clients remains confidential. The device involves a system of licensing investors in law firms. Observing the core values would be a condition of keeping the licence. At present external ownership of law firms and “multi-disciplinary firms” are forbidden so as to maintain the requirement for independence of solicitors and a system which provides a tried and tested arrangement for core values of the legal profession to be respected.

This proposed change has caused deep controversy amongst solicitors in Scotland. Those who favour the change say that it will make it easier to finance law firms and to find new ways of offering legal services to the public. They point out that there is no compulsion on solicitors to accept external investment. Those who oppose the change say that external ownership of law firms fundamentally contradicts the principle of independence. It will lead to a lowering of professional standards and will prejudice the standing of all solicitors in Scotland contrary to the public interest.

Until now those who support the change have won the argument. The Law Society’s Council and members in general meeting have supported the proposal. Those opposed to the change are concerned that because the proposal seems to offer to solicitors to sell their firm’s goodwill at a high price to investors, this gives some solicitors a potential financial interest which affects their objectivity.

This controversy well illustrates why the issue is too important to be left to solicitors to decide. Whilst MSPs must take note of what the Law Society has agreed to, the decision is one of public interest, and not for the profession. The public has a fundamental interest in the rule of law and an effective system to maintain it. The legislation governing solicitors in Scotland requires the Law Society of Scotland “to promote the interests of the solicitors’ profession in Scotland and the interests of the public in relation to that profession”. The statute imposes two potentially conflicting duties on the Society. It has kept faith fairly well with the public interest despite challenges implied and experienced. However the Law Society should not be the final arbiter of the public interest.

Recent experience in the financial services industry does not indicate confidence that investors with a purely financial interest in maintaining ethical rules can be relied on to do so. Yet this is what is proposed by the Legal Services Bill. Solicitors need to respect professional rules to maintain their livelihood. Investors in a law firm which breaches its licence conditions can sell their stake in the firm and move on.

Confidentiality of information given by clients to solicitors is an essential feature of a fair system of administering justice. It is protected from disclosure to the courts. It is hard to understand how owners of a law firm who are not qualified to practice law can be prevented from acquiring this information if they demand it and yet keep it from the courts.

Does the public want a system where law firms are under the control of this or that commercial interest? Is it better to keep a system where independence of solicitors’ ownership and control is maintained? The bill would allow advocates to maintain their existing rules requiring independence. Solicitors take part in much more litigation in Scotland than advocates do. Is it good public policy to allow solicitors to compromise their independence?

It is said that these changes will better allow Scottish solicitors to compete internationally. Examination of this claim suggests that the opposite is likely to be true. Similar changes are being introduced in England. There is a strong incentive in Scotland to follow England. However no such changes are proposed in USA. Other Member States in the European Union have consistently refused to accept this type of change. An EU Directive on the Right of Establishment of Lawyers (98/5/EC at Article 11.5.) specifically allows a host Member State to refuse to admit to practice any lawyer qualified elsewhere who is a member of a law firm where some of the owners are not members of the legal profession. These changes would pose a threat to international legal practice by Scottish solicitors.

It is said that these changes will benefit consumers by allowing legal services to be offered in new ways. Examination of this claim suggests that here also the opposite is likely to be true. We have a system where legal advice can normally be provided where it is economically possible to do so or where support is given from public funds. The areas of law where legal services are hard to find are generally those where clients cannot afford to pay. It is difficult to understand how this basic fact can be overcome by the provision of service by supermarket companies, banks or insurers. Solicitors have provided a network of offices throughout Scotland where legal services are available locally. If the financially viable parts of legal services are taken over by large commercial providers this will lead to increasing centralisation, and a loss for local consumers. It is true that the internet has changed the way of delivering many products and services. It is also true that most legal services do not readily adapt to this form of delivery any more than providing medical services does. The threat to local solicitors firms is a threat to consumers.

To allow solicitors to work in “multi-disciplinary practices” seems superficially to be attractive. However the history of this type of activity is not encouraging. High profile joint ventures between lawyers and accountants in Scotland have been tried. They failed. Lawyers and Accountants have different roles to perform. In consequence their ethical rules are different. No-one has shown how they can be reconciled. Which rules take precedence? Either would cause unacceptable problems for the other.

We live in a time where so much change happens that we are tempted to think that all change is good. The Legal Services Bill seems to increase the options for solicitors and clients. MSPs are will have to consider whether the opposite may not be true and whether despite the support of the Law Society, its proposals may damage the public interest.

Walter Semple 21/10/2009
Magna Carta never applied in Scotland, and the writ of habeas corpus, standardised in England under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, has no meaning in Scotland.
User avatar
somenick
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:49 pm

Re: Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Postby huntingross » Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:12 pm

@ lone wolf

My thread started here

viewtopic.php?f=89&t=1845&hilit=+notary#p16878

Went on to this

viewtopic.php?f=89&t=1845&p=21625&hilit=press#p21625

And pretty much fizzled out after this

viewtopic.php?f=89&t=1845&hilit=press&start=80#p26921

My thoughts on the subject remain unchanged.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Postby somenick » Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:22 pm

I had an interesting conversation with my cousin just now, who is a fully qualified Scottish lawyer. It was regarding the DCA who are demanding money from me. I told her I had sent them a conditional offer, the essence of which was for them to provide me with proof that they had a contract they could hold me to.

She told me it was good that I was being pro active and not ignoring their Notices. I explained that I have no idea who the DCA are and that unless they provide me with this proof, they could be ANYONE asking me for money. She said I need to go back to the Credit Card Company for this evidence (which I will not, as I believe the DCA should to provide me with it).

I asked her, "what if the Credit Card Company cannot provide me with a contract that I have signed if I ask them to?" and she explained that the fact that I have a Credit Card of theirs and a spending history with them is proof enough.

This is why you cannot lay claim to your legal fiction name and title in following the Freeman Principles.
Last edited by somenick on Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
somenick
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:49 pm

Re: Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Postby huntingross » Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:44 pm

she explained that the fact that I have a Credit Card of theirs and a spending history with them is proof enough.


If this is going to be considered to be sufficient (and the evidence from the courts decisions seems to support this) then we are perfectly entitled to ask for the original or verified copy of the agreement....if it is not forthcoming then write to them and establish the T&C's we desire.

I have already challenged the Bank of Scotland on this and they came back with nothing

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2419&hilit=bank+scotland#p22293
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Postby somenick » Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:31 pm

It seems to have become company policy to bring people to trial without any evidence of Conflict.
Solicitors, Lawyers and Courts appear to be widely ignoring the significance of Conditional Offers.

The UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION (corporations by "law" have to make profit their fundamental goal before anything else) and all its subsidiaries are serving business before humanity, generally taking the sides of larger, more profitable institutions. If they want to ignore my conditional offers and terms I send them, surely they will? They know that company policy will take their side.

I have read all your links lone wolf. Still don't quite "get" this part of the Notary jigsaw, in that the System as a whole, being a Corporation, considers a Human Being to be vastly inferior to a Corporation and with far less rights, regardless of the unlawfulness of this belief. That is the ceiling we seem to have hit.
Magna Carta never applied in Scotland, and the writ of habeas corpus, standardised in England under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, has no meaning in Scotland.
User avatar
somenick
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:49 pm

Re: Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Postby lone wolf » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:08 am

Yes... I think I know what you mean by hitting a ceiling...I see it as the Secret Society with no name..is the law society, therefore they are the servants of the financial elite.

These bullies will not just roll over because of all the attributes of wickedness they have e.g. masive pride/ego, greed, lazyness, gluttoney, jealousy etc...

Its like Rob: Menard says 'its like taking a bone from a snarling dog....' so we better slip them the odd scooby snack, like what's in it for them...?
i.e. nothing... unless they can give up their greed and control of others, because they forgot the Law.

I do know we need to keep peace and love in our own hearts, and never give in...a bit like the dog wisperer, calm but assertive.

I Would love to find a Notary that operates soley under Common Law...not hopeful though. (there probably is no such thing) So three good witnesses are just as good if not better. Because the fat controler only listens to other greeds anyway...

Peace n Freedom,
lw
I am that i am....attempting to listen to the silence, and gaze upon the empty space, to feel my inner body, just to be, to be here and now, Now I can take action thats truth, being, love, peace freedom and joy
User avatar
lone wolf
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Scottish vs English Notaries/Solicitors

Postby somenick » Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:35 pm

I wrote to the Scottish Law Society asking for clarification on the use of Stamps of Dishonour and Stamps of Protest. I wasn't expecting an answer, but eventually I got one. Here it is:

Thank you for your e.mail of 6 January. I have to inform you that the phrases "stamps of dishonour" and "stamps of protest" are not used in Scots Law. It is possible to protest a Bill of Exchange or a Bill of Lading but that is a very unusual procedure and is limited to banking or maritime practice.

I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.
Yours sincerely
Michael P Clancy O.B.E.
Director of Law Reform
Magna Carta never applied in Scotland, and the writ of habeas corpus, standardised in England under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, has no meaning in Scotland.
User avatar
somenick
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:49 pm


Return to Notaries Public & Solicitors Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron