Who REALLY Issued the Interdict on Robert Green and Why? – updated

Updated: See * (Buchanan-V-Robert-Green-July-2010.pdf).The document provides the full statement of account. (select save, open with pdf reader).

Added: Buchanan V Robert Green timeline. (collated from pdf and known events) select save and open with MS Excel or Libre Office.


Question: Who is the Monkey? Who is the Engine Driver?

Robert Green stands trial in a Stonehaven Court on Monday January 16th accused of “breach of the peace” because of an interdict granted on February 11th 2010, this was not served on him till he was in prison, after they realised their mistake. But who really pursued the interdict? We all thought it was the Scottish Crown Office, or was it someone else?

On a cold winter’s day on February 12th 2009, Robert Green, an Englishman from Warrington, Cheshire, was arrested for walking down a street in Aberdeen, Scotland, on his way to meet friends who were helping with his election campaign. A campaign which highlighted the abuse of Hollie Greig, a Down Syndrome woman abused in the first instance by her father all her life, who then prostituted her to his paedophile cohorts which is allegedly included Aberdeen Sheriff Graham Buchanan.

Why were Hollie and her mother, Anne Greig denied justice by a criminal justice system? They are the victims and as such they should have been protected. In fear of their life they eventually fled to England in Oct. 2005 with the assistance of Women’s Aid and the Down Syndrome Association (DSA). It is interesting to note, the DSA supported Anne and Hollie for a period of 10 years then when their Press Agent John Smithies was about to put out a press release in support of their case, he was called to the office of the charities Director Carol Boyes and dismissed on the spot as a result of his supportive action. The DSA have been instrumental in the current court action in the High Court of Appeal and harassment by Shropshire Council this is a breach of the public trust, No Secrets Policy and the Carers Rights Act using malfeasance, misfeasance and abuse of process. This is an abuse of power using the closed family courts to silence the case and take Hollie away from her mother. Why is a charity not supporting the victims of crime to receive justice or is there a Common Purpose here?

There are pertinent questions relating to Hollie’s case beginning with Anne’s unlawful sectioning instigated by Denis Mackieand followed through using the powers of the police in 2000 and the unlawful arrest of Robert Green in 2010 with a trumped-up charge of “breach of the peace” on February 12th 2010.

In 1997, in a remote part of Aberdeen, Roy Greig, Hollie’s uncle (Anne’s brother) was found dead in a burning car in suspicious circumstances with inconsistent injuries and no public enquiry. Years later, after Anne fled her home in 2000 and went into a hostel, Hollie told her Roy had caught her father sexually abusing her, Anne and Hollie went to the police and reported abuse in May 2000.

Hollie and her mother reported details of more abuse to Grampian Police in September 2000, ten days later, 10 people turned up at her home after the Police issued a warrant for the sectioning of her mother, Anne. Hollie was not afforded any consideration or support for reporting a serious crime of RAPE. Later resulting in post traumatic stress and night terrors due to seeing her mother physically sectioned and taken away from her on top of years of abuse which resulted in physical scarring for which Hollie was awarded £13,500 by the Criminal Injuries Commission as a victim of a crime. Grampian Police allowed the spoliation of evidence resulting in no criminal charges and no case to answer. Mattresses in Anne’s home were disposed in her absence by Denis Mackie, vital DNA was lost. Terry Major former Met Police officer, (one of Hollie’s alleged abusers), was at the time Head of Forensics at Grampian Police and cousin by marriage to Denis Mackie. Who gained? Could it be said the police were protecting their own? It is alleged that questions were raised concerning Terry Major’s involvement in the Shirley McKie case http://www.shirleymckie.com/ This case also raises some very serious questions about the criminal justice system in Scotland.

It was reported by the Scottish Law Reporter: “….a witness list which has varied in numbers and currently totals SIXTY ONE persons.”

How many police were employed to interview the 61 alleged witnesses or are they victim statements which is just their opinions?

How did the police gain the knowledge that there were 61 witnesses?

How were they contacted?

How long did each interview take?

What exactly were they a witness to?

To date, Robert has not been given copies of the alleged statements.

If the alleged witnesses felt Robert’s spoken and written words were slanderous or libellous, why have they not, individually or collectively, taken out a private prosecution against him or Anne and Hollie? Yet, it seems Elish Agiolini has enabled them to hide behind the Scottish Crown, using the public purse. Yet, on more than one occasion it is has been reported that she and Sheriff Buchannan, using ” out of time” strategies denied justice to other sexually abused victims. Why who gains?

In the court of Session the intredict

Look at the first paragraph in the above Pdf document sent to Robert Green from Simpson and Marwick who represent Sheriff Graham Buchanan and Denis Mackie, demanding £7,500 for expenses they incurred including arranging surveillance of Robert and issuing of the INTERDICT on the 11th February 2010. This resulted in his arrest the next day using the Crown Office of Elish Angiolini as a front. Why did Sheriff Graham Buchanan go into the private, using his position to get the interdict on Robert, then used the Crown Office to front it with the arrest on a trumped up “breach of the peace” charge? Is this not an abuse of position and breach of trust using the public purse – FRAUD?  Why did Sheriff Buchanan claim to have paid thousands of pounds for a PRIVATE CLAIM for expenses he paid to have Robert put under surveillance without his knowledge, which amounts to stalking?

Updated: See * Buchanan-V-Robert-Green-July-2010.pdf. The document provides the full statement of account.

Added:Buchanan V Robert Green timeline. (collated from pdf and known events)

On page 3 of the attached Pdf claim, its states that Simson and Marwick, wrote to the Press & Journal in Aberdeen in 2009, on behalf of Sheriff Graham Buchanan. In their four-page letter they highlighted grave concerns of their comments made in their front page article entitled “Down’s syndrome woman names paedophile ring Hollie tells police she was abused by sheriff.” Why did they not threaten to sue the Press and Journal for defamation? Who gains? http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1488131

It is alleged the former Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini used public funds when she went to Levy and Mcrae to try to and silence The Firm magazine and the UK Column for printing Hollie’s story. Why has she refused to answer the Freedom of Information Request: Will she tell the truth in court under oath at Robert’s trial?

Extract2-Buchanan V Robert Green July 2010

Note that Simpson & Marwick took instruction from the Scottish Government via Peter Watson of Levy & McRae, not Angiolini privately.

Who was it that ordered the arrest of Robert Green for walking down a street in Aberdeen to meet people to distribute leaflets for his election campaign? Answer: Elish Angiolini, previous Lord Advocate. Why would the Lord Advocate want to arrest a man for running an election campaign highlighting the injustice of the Hollie Greig story? Why did she use the Crown Office when it was Sheriff Buchanan who ordered and the interdict? Who gained?

Intradict BUCHANAN, Graeme v GREEN, Robert 12-Feb-2010-01

How can Robert defend himself when he was denied the evidence to do so?

Is this not a breach of trust, abuse of power, abuse of process and abuse of position (e.g. fraud act 2006 and the right to a fair trial)? Why, who gains?

Anne’s Divorce:

Anne was continually refused her common law right to enter the Aberdeen Court to confront Denis Mackie and Sheriff Buchanan who presided over Anne’s divorce. Instead she was kept in the court cafe for 8 hours comforting her daughter Hollie, who at the site of seeing her father broke down in tears. Hollie was prepared to testify under oath that her father, Denis Mackie and her brother Greg Makie had continually sexually abused her since she was 6 years-old. Anne and Hollie were prohibited from entering the court as was their expert witness Dr Eva Harding, a well respected psychologist who interviewed and wrote a report on Hollie. This same report was never submitted by the police to the Procurator Fiscal’s Office and no investigation ordered. Whilst her barrister Allison Sterling and Denis Mackie’s barrister, Morag B. Wise and Sheriff Graham Buchanan did their business in the court landing area. Subsequently, after the hearing, it became apparent that Denis Mackie’s associate, Sheriff Buchanan, had also abused Hollie in the same way. Who gained here?

It of great concern that Sheriff Buchanan allowed himself to adjudicate in a case where he was clearly personally associated with one of the parties (Denis Mackie), and with whom he shares the same solicitor Simpson and Marwick. This is clearly a prima facie case of a conflict of interest and the decision of the court should therefore have been struck out.


Elish Angolini, Frank Mullholland, Sir Menzies Campbell CBE QC and Alex Salmond are all members of the Privy Council. Angiolini now works in the same stable as Sir Menzies Campbell. Is it not surprising Robert’s appeal for help to Sir Menzies fell on deaf ears? Anne and Hollie are now appealing trying to get an appeal hearing in the Court of Appeal in London . However an appeal from the court’s decisions lies to the privy Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_court

Is this not a conflict of interest?

Magna Carta, says in Article 39: “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land.”


What is Sheriff Graham Buchanan afraid of; a down syndrome woman and her mother?

Why is he hiding in the shadows using his public office to issue an interdict on Robert Green ?

Who is he protecting by not bringing proceedings for defamation into the public domain?

Is it because the truth would come out if he went down that path?

For 12 years a number of high profile and well paid “public servants” have had the power to intervene and bring this injustice to an end. Why have they not?

It is easier to shoot the messenger (Robert Green) in an attempt to silence Hollie a Down Syndrome woman and her mother, using the closed family courts claiming she needs protection from her mother and Robert Green. Please try to attend Robert’s hearing in Stonehaven Scotland on Monday 16th January and give him all the support you can. Please also try to attend the next hearing in the RCJ court of Appeal London, date to be announced. Please watch this website for details.

The Public always have the moral right, and, through the Great Charter Magna Carta Constitution, “We the People” backed by the full forces of law and order, have the sovereign legal power and civic duty in Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury to intervene and annul prosecution and enforcement of all vexatious regulations and unjust legislation. This is achieved by the Rulings and Verdicts of indiscriminately chosen Juries of ordinary adult citizens (not government employees; judges). This is explicitly the prime purpose of Magna Carta because governments everywhere and at all times trend towards tyranny and injustice. We forget the lessons of history at our peril…

Rotting fish, rots from the head first.

12 thoughts on “Who REALLY Issued the Interdict on Robert Green and Why? – updated

  1. Excellent summary of this case, I do hope this site is still getting frequent hits from the government bodies and police! Take note…..THIS WILL NOT GO AWAY, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU ALL CONSPIRE TO MAKE IT!

  2. Well said Sandra. Were still here, and will continue to highlight this case until we see justice for Hollie.

  3. Good luck with the trial Robert. This case has been an eye opener as far as Scottish corruption is concerned…Heads must roll…all the best!

  4. Brilliant update! Isn’t it time now for trial by jury as is your God given right. Playing the game by their rules just doesn’t work. No jury in this world would convict Robert and “they” know it. Represent yourself Robert and get these criminals behind bars once and for all.

  5. Who let him have a a trial by Sherrif, what kind of legal representation was that???

    So let me get this right: Simpson and Marwick was incommunication with Peter Watson regarding his instructions for the Scottish Government. How does that work? “Email communications with Peter Watson solicitor (Levy and Mcrae) in regard to his instructions on behalf of the Scottish Government and receiving from him a variety of information in so far as the actings of the defender were concerned and generally considering same.”
    Was this public money that paid for this? Is this Elish Angolini?

    It also states on the invoice from Faculty Services Ltd, Advocate Building, Parliament House, Edingbrugh. “25/3/2010 Client Graham Buchanan V Robert Green – Case Type “CIVIL”
    Why was Levy and Mcrae instructed by the Government (Elish Angolini?) since this was a civil matter?

    I noticed that Simpson and Marwick acted for Sherrif Buchanan in this matter. It states in the Excel Doc. S & M acted for Denis Mackie in Anne’s divorce which Sherrif Buchanan precided over. What’s gone on here….are we joining the dots?

  6. Wow…Yea gods this is the missing link to the Scottish Government…we have it in back and white colluding with Buchanan. Surely a judicial review has got to come out of this case now.

  7. Just how do they think they can cover-up documentary proof? Unless they use more intradicts and threats from Levy McRae of course.

    You know the old saying…. its always the cover-up that gets them..

  8. Does this mean that Robert was arrested for breaking the injunction which was not served on him-until after he was arrested for breaking it? If so, surely it is a case of wrongful arrest and the wrong culprit is in the ‘dock’!!

  9. Where is Esther Rantzen, the so called champion for children ?
    She won’t go anywhere near this case, neither will the mainstream media.
    They are all scared s****less.