—————————————————————————-–
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
——————————————————————————–
IN THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHWARK
Served Upon: JCIO, Serious Fraud Office, Public Inquiry Committee, Financial Conduct Authority, and all Parties Cited in Certificate of Service
Filed by: Iain Clifford, occupant of the office of the General Executor of the Estate known as [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP]
This Notice of Estoppel and Final Affidavit of Dishonour is issued to the following Crown agencies and officers, who have failed to respond to lawful notices, affidavits, and demands served via certified post and public record:
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
FCA Complaints Commissionaire
Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)
Southwark Crown Court and His Honour Judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER]
Attorney General
Despite multiple affidavits, formal complaints, and lawful notices served between June 2023 and July 2025, none of the above parties have provided rebuttal or evidence in response to the following demands:
Evidence that [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] performed any regulated activity under FSMA 2000.
Proof of jurisdiction over the living man Iain Clifford.
Proof of lawful identity and delegation of “Alistair Mackenzie”
Judicial oath of office for Judge Anthony Baumgartner.
Evidence of Crown Agent at Southwark Crown Court.
That all liabilities of the body corporate [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] are liabilities of the crown.
Order 34 2023 is a prohibited trespass on the estate of [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] as the estate was revested under Cestui Qui Vie 1666, 1707.
The collapse of Order 34/2023 as a void constructive trust that does not serve the beneficiary.
Common Law, Equity, and Lawful Notice, under established principles of common law and equity, where a party remains silent in response to a duly served lawful notice or
affidavit, that silence constitutes tacit agreement and dishonour.
In Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, the foundational principle of binding communication was confirmed—namely, that the failure to respond within a reasonable period creates enforceable consequences. Where a recipient is under a moral or legal
duty to reply, continued silence confirms acquiescence. Therefore, all named parties who have received unrebutted notices and affidavits from the Affiant and failed to respond
are now estopped from asserting any claim of lawful authority, jurisdiction, or standing over the estate known as [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP].
Estoppel by Convention – Tinkler v HMRC [2021] UKSC 39. The Supreme Court in Tinkler affirmed that where two parties act on a shared assumption of fact or law, and one party later attempts to contradict that assumption, the principle of estoppel by convention may preclude them from doing so. Silence and passivity over time can, in
law, bind a party from asserting contrary positions.
All named entities who have received lawful notices and affidavits from the Affiant and failed to rebut those communications have, by their conduct, affirmed a shared assumption of lack of jurisdiction, invalidity of claim, or waiver of authority. Any later action taken in contradiction to that assumption is now barred by estoppel.
Equitable Implications of Silence – Barton v Morris [2023] UKSC 3, in Barton, the UK Supreme Court reaffirmed that where one party reasonably relies on another’s silence or omission, equity may imply binding obligations or equitable remedies to prevent
unfair outcomes. Silence can amount to a representation where it would be unconscionable to allow a later contradiction.
The Affiant has relied on the silence of the Respondents to proceed under the
assumption that their claims have been admitted or dishonoured. Any later denial or contradictory conduct is inequitable and barred by law.
Estoppel by Representation and Acquiescence, where a party has, by silence or passive conduct, represented that they do not dispute a claim, and where the
opposing party has relied on that representation to their prejudice, the law of equity prevents the silent party from later asserting a contrary position.
The Respondents’ failure to respond constitutes:
Estoppel by representation: A failure to rebut has created the impression of consent or waiver.
Estoppel by acquiescence: By remaining silent, the Respondents allowed the Affiant to proceed in reliance upon their non- objection.
Estoppel by silence: A legal bar now arises against any subsequent assertion of jurisdiction, standing, or claim.
Joint and Several Liability of Crown Parties and Agents
Legal Maxim: Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Pursuant to the enduring legal maxim, “Notice to agent is notice to principal; notice to principal is notice to agent,” the service of lawful notices and affidavits upon any Crown officer, public servant,
regulatory agency, or judicial representative constitutes service upon the entire agency and the Sovereign Crown it represents. This doctrine, affirmed in both common law and equity, renders all notified parties jointly and severally liable for the consequences of:
Procedural dishonour,
Fraud by silence,
Misfeasance or nonfeasance in public office,
Trespass upon the Affiant’s estate, rights, and standing,
Reputational and psychological harm arising from the unlawful enforcement of defective or void proceedings.
The failure of any party so served to rebut the Affiant’s claims in substance, point- for-point, and within the stipulated time periods operates as a tacit admission of the facts asserted, and invokes liability in both private and public law.
Vicarious Liability of the Crown for Agents’ Acts and Omissions, all Crown officers, departments, and affiliated public actors who have been served are, in law, jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of their agents under the doctrine of vicarious liability.
Specifically, they are liable for:
Failure to rebut lawful affidavits and notices, thereby dishonouring lawful process;
Breach of fiduciary duty owed to the public and to the Affiant by knowingly or negligently participating in unlawful conduct;
Complicity in the enforcement of a void or defective Order, namely Order 34/2023, absent jurisdiction or standing;
Suppression of lawful objections, obstruction of remedy, and denial of procedural due process through administrative evasion.
This position is grounded in long-standing legal authority, including:
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H&C 526: Where a principal was held liable for the tortious act of a servant committed during the course of employment, despite express instructions to the contrary.
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22: Where the House of Lords affirmed that employers and institutional principals are liable for wrongful acts of their agents where those acts are sufficiently connected to their roles.
In both cases, and under current UK public law, the Crown cannot evade liability for the misfeasance of its agents where such misfeasance arises within the purported exercise of public duty—even if unlawful.
Constructive and Actual Knowledge, where notice has been served by affidavit, the knowledge of wrongdoing is both actual and constructive. No Crown actor or agency may claim ignorance of the facts, as:
Lawful notice was served by a proper party (the Affiant),
Ample opportunity was provided to respond and rebut,
Silence operates as dishonour and tacit consent in equity.
Consequently, liability now attaches individually and corporately to all notified parties for failure to rebut, failure to investigate, and for permitting ongoing harm and fraud.
Liability Under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), pursuant to Article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights, where a violation of Convention rights is established and no adequate domestic remedy is available, the State is obliged to offer just satisfaction to the injured party.
In this matter:
The Affiant’s rights under Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (privacy and integrity), and Article 13 (effective remedy) have been systematically violated;
The judiciary, regulators, and prosecutors have failed to rebut or investigate sworn affidavits challenging the lawfulness and jurisdiction of Order 34/2023;
No forum has provided remedy, hearing, or judicial investigation into the procedural and jurisdictional defects raised.
Accordingly, the United Kingdom, acting through its Crown agencies and courts, bears direct liability for these violations and for any compensatory, injunctive, or declaratory relief arising therefrom.
Conclusion
All parties served—whether regulators, prosecutors, judiciary, or administrative agents—now stand as:
Joint tortfeasors, liable for the unlawful enforcement of a void order and resultant harm;
Vicariously liable, as representatives of the Crown and its institutions;
Personally liable, to the extent of their inaction, dishonour, and complicity;
Internationally accountable, under the ECHR and customary international human rights law.
Their continued silence in the face of lawful process only deepens the liability
and triggers estoppel from asserting jurisdiction, lawful authority, or immunity from suit.
Public Scrutiny and Transparency, this case is now the subject of intensifying public scrutiny and international awareness. Thousands of MATRIXFREEDOM members are closely monitoring the legal developments, while a much broader audience— comprising liberty advocates, legal reformers, and alternative media platforms—is becoming acutely aware of the procedural irregularities, jurisdictional failures, and institutional misconduct that characterise this matter.
The multi-part documentary series The Disrupter, which chronicles over fifteen years of resistance to unlawful financial and judicial systems, has become a cornerstone in raising global awareness. This documentary, along with supporting videos and strategic briefings, is being disseminated across major free-speech platforms including:
Telegram
Rumble
X (formerly Twitter)
YouTube
Substack
Bitchute
In parallel, the narrative surrounding Order 34/2023, the fictitious corporate prosecution, and the Crown’s failure to rebut sworn affidavits is being amplified through interviews with internationally respected independent journalists and presenters, including:
Del Bigtree (The HighWire)
Sacha Stone (Arise Guerrilla News, Lazarus Initiative)
David Icke (Ickonic)
Robert Scott Bell
Alex Jones (Infowars)
Charlie Ward
Michael Jaco
Mel K
Sean Stone
These presenters, each commanding audiences in the hundreds of thousands to millions, are conducting in-depth interviews and panels that expose the regulatory overreach, fraudulent enforcement actions, and coordinated institutional silence surrounding this case.
Thousands of MATRIXFREEDOM members continue to engage through live webinars, Q&A sessions, and legal briefings that explore the statutory, constitutional, and equitable issues at stake. These sessions are professionally recorded, transcribed, and repurposed into:
Weekly podcasts
Shareable video clips
Community newsletters
Detailed Substack articles
Open letters to regulators and MPs
Interviews translated into multiple languages
The goal is clear: to permanently lodge the facts in the public record, ensuring that no institution or agent can claim ignorance or immunity.
This multi-channel transparency campaign is not merely informational—it is strategic. It is designed to:
Hold Crown agencies accountable for dishonour and fraud by silence
Rebuild public trust through lawful remedy, education, and exposure
Provide international observers, legal analysts, and potential intervenors with verified evidence
Create social, political, and legal pressure to compel remedy or intervention
The Affiant affirms that transparency is no longer optional. Given the silence of the Respondents, the court of public opinion now acts as a critical forum for justice and exposure. Public oversight is a safeguard against tyranny, and this matter will remain in that spotlight until remedy is obtained.
JURAT
I Iain Clifford, holding the office of General Executor of the [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] estate, a divine (holy) living spirit, born again, incarnate with life as a man under God’s law, attest and affirm that the aforementioned is true and correct, attested to and submitted by a living,
breathing, self-aware man, under God. I further acknowledge that this is an act of my free will and Deed.
I solemnly swear and affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the contents of this document are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
By: Iain Clifford
Iain Clifford
10th July Twenty Twenty-Five.
Witnesses
The undersigned witnesses hereby affirm that they personally observed Iain Clifford execute this affidavit, and that, to the best of their knowledge, the facts stated herein are true and accurate.
Witness 1
Proper Name: Andrew Michael Signature: Andrew Michael Date: 10th July 2025
Witness 2
Proper Name: David Ayerst
Signature: David Ayerst Date: 10th July 2025 Witness 3
Proper Name: Angela John
Signature: Angela John
Date: 10th July 2025
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Iain Clifford, Certify the foregoing was provided by UK Special delivery mailed to:
Office of [KEIR STARMER] The Office of Prime Minister 10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
Office of [KING CHARLES III]
The Office of the King Buckingham Palace London
SW1A 1AA
Office of [RICHARD HERMER] The Office of Attorney General 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9EA
United Kingdom.
Office of [YVETTE COOPER] The Office of Secretary of State 2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Office of [ANDREW BAILEY] The Office Bank of England Threadneedle Street
London EC2R 8AH
Office of [NIKHIL RATHI]
The Office of Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority 12 Endeavour Square
London E20 1JN
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office 3rd Floor, 10 Victoria Street
London, SW1H 0NN
Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Office of Director [LISA OSOFSKY] Serious Fraud Office
2-4 Cockspur Street London, SW1Y 5BS
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
FAO: Complaints Team 12 Endeavour Square London, E20 1JN
FCA Complaints Commissioner Office of [ANTONY TOWNSEND]
Office of the Complaints Commissioner 1 Horse Guards Road
London, SW1A 2HQ
Office of [DEREK ANTHONY SWEETING]
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London
WC2A 2LL
United Kingdom
Office of [ALASDAIR MACKENZIE]
The Office of Criminal Prosecutions Team Financial Conduct Authority 12 Endeavour Square
London E20 1JN
Office of [MATTHEW STONE] The Financial Conduct Authority 12 Endeavour Square
London E20 1JN
Office of [PIETRO BOFFA] The Financial Conduct Authority 12 Endeavour Square
London E20 1JN
Office of [ANTHONY BAUMGARTEN]
The Office of Southwark Crown Court 1 English Grounds.
Southwark London SE1 2HU
Office of [DAME SUSAN ELIZABETH CARR]
The Office of Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) 81-82 Queen’s Building
Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Office of [SHABANA MAHMOOD]
The Office of the Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
Office of [NICK GOODWIN]
The Office of HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Post Point 1.10
102 Petty France London
SW1H 9AJ
Office of [DAME VICTORIA SHARP]
The office of the Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Office of [DAME SARAH ELIZABETH COCKERILL]
The Office of the Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London WC2A 2LL
As per Section 196(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) provides that: “Any notice shall also be sufficiently served if it is served by registered post or recorded delivery by virtue of section 1 of the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962” Furthermore: Under section 127(4) of the Postal Services Act 2000 (PSA 2000) and PSA 2000, Sch 8 Pt II, paras 2–3.