Sheriff Kinloch 4th April 2018

Name:     Sheriff Kinloch

Court:     Livingston Sheriff Court

Date:       4th April 2018

It was not acceptable for Sheriff Kinloch to state that he had jurisdiction and as the defendant had questioned this, it must be established.

Sheriff Kinlock had failed to act on equitable grounds and had acted with bias:

a) Sheriff Kinlock ignored the fact that no valid contract existed between the parties.

b) Sheriff Kinlock refused to recuse himself when asked to do so, the defendant confirmed that there was a clear bias towards the pursuer, that the Sheriff could not be trusted and that he was protecting the vested interests of the pursuer. This was further highlighted when the Sheriff then threatened to find the defendant in contempt of court, despite the fact that this was a civil hearing.

c) Sheriff Kinlock failed to accept the common law birth certificate, a lawful document establishing the defendants standing under common law jurisdiction.

d) Sheriff Kinlock failed to accept the ownership certificate for the legal entity, a lawful document confirming that the court had no authority over it, jurisdiction or contract.

e) Sheriff Kinlock failed to accept the lawful ownership and sale document for the defendants property and the fact that it was now under common law jurisdiction.

f) In refusing to accept the lawful documents issued by the Common Law Court, Sheriff Kinloch has departed from the rule of law.

g) The actions of Sheriff Kinloch have established that he has failed to act reasonably in the circumstances.

h) The Sheriff announced in open court that the defendant was not there, he had disappeared, this was not the case as he was there as a man and the representative and owner of the legal fiction.

I) The flesh and blood living man is entitled to lead his own defence of choice.

j) The court in doing so prevented the defendant from lodging a lawful defence by short cutting the process and awarding everything to the pursuer.

k) The behaviour of Sheriff Kinloch confirms Prima Facia evidence of bias against the defendant and against the Public Interest.

l) As the facts have been left out of the court record, this confirms Prima Facie evidence of corruption.

m) In relation to this case, two separate sheriffs (Edington and Kinloch) have acted in unison.

n) The court gerrymandered interlocutors to protect the Sheriffs, the court and to protect vested interests, in doing so the court has denied the defendant his inalienable rights as a flesh and blood man and the owner of the legal fiction, in order to side with the pursuer.



The Sheriffs and court have to be equitable at all times, it wasn’t equitable because the Sheriffs denied the defendant an opportunity of choosing his own lawful defence. A FUNDEMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE EXISTANCE OF ANY LAWFUL COURT.


What do you think of Sheriff Kinloch’s behaviour?

What do you think of the statutory courts?