—————————————————————————-–
AFFIDAVIT
Order 34 2023
——————————————————————————–
PMA status – Denial of Jurisdiction – No Regulated Services Supplied – Unlawful and Illegal Service – Breach of Oath – Malfeasance – Diplomatic Immunity – Appointment of Attorney in Fact
I, Iain Clifford, a living man, competent to testify to the matters herein, do solemnly affirm and declare as follows:
MATRIXFREEDOM
An unincorporated private association that provides free information and research to its members, members that wish to initiate processes that include tax recoupment filings fund administrative support on a self directed basis, similar to the process of self-directed pensions.
Upon joining, members waive statutory rights and participate solely in self-directed administrative processes. The association maintains no banking facilities and does not engage in claims management, debt counselling, or the issuance of financial promotions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).
[IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate is a member of MATRIXFREEDOM as are two UK administrative companies that [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate acted as shareholder and director, these companies are now dissolved as a result of the FCA’s malfeasance and order 34 2023.
Members receive no guarantees of success for their self-directed processes and or tax recoupment filings and are fully responsible for their own actions.
Over 600 video-recorded testimonials have been produced in 2025 alone from members residing in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, these videos confirm the support from MATRIXFREEDOM members and for MATRIXFREEDOM and Iain Clifford. A selection of witness statement confirming that no FCA regulated services are provided by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent
estate or Iain Clifford the living man or any MATRIXFREEDOM member, the statements will be served on the parties to this matter from MATRIXFREEDOM members prior to the currently scheduled
punishment hearing on June 30th 2025.
Formally fees and now donations paid for administrative services are not paid to [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] they are paid to administrative service providers as members of MATRIXFREEDOM, these providers are not controlled or owned by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent
estate, or Iain Clifford and operate under Private Member Association statutory waivers and are not under UK jurisdiction. Donations are noncontingent and may be credited forward to future administrative support processes at the member’s discretion.
Members sign a services agreement that clearly details waiver of
statutory rights and that no regulated services are provided by member companies and no guarantees of success with any self-directed processes or tax recoupment filings.
I rebut the legitimacy and proportionality of the FCA’s conduct as it relates to [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate and Iain Clifford the living man and MATRIXFREEDOM and its members.
In its revised Enforcement Guide, the FCA purports to promote clarity and fairness. However, its conduct in this matter contradicts its own stated aims.
MATRIXFREEDOM operates under a private contractual structure and does not offer regulated financial promotions, claims management, or debt management services. The administrative services provided are self-directed and do not require FCA authorisation.
I assert the following:
The FCA has operated on speculation, not substantiated facts, launching investigations absent credible evidence that [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate and Iain Clifford the living man and MATRIXFREEDOM or its members conduct regulated activities under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).
Neither [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate, Iain Clifford the living man nor any other member of MATRIXFREEDOM’s private members association (PMA) has carried out activity falling within the scope of regulated activity as defined under Schedule 2 FSMA or guided by the FCA’s own PERG Handbook.
MATRIXFREEDOM’s PMA operates under private contract law, with all members waiving statutory protections:
Provides only self-directed administrative support, with no guarantees of success or outcome;
Is based on voluntary, informed participation, with each member responsible for their own lawful decisions.
Fees paid are not to [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] personally, but to PMA-affiliated service companies, which are private and
nonstatutory in nature.
Prior to the scheduled hearing on June 30th MATRIXFREEDOM members will submit witness statements affirming that confirm that no regulated services were ever offered to them by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate, Iain Clifford or any other member of MATRIXFREEDOM PMA.
No Evidence, No Complaint, No Harm, despite over five years of investigation, the FCA has:
Produced no formal charge.
Neither [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford the living man or any other member of MATRIXFREEDOM PMA has ever received a complaint relating to claims management, debt counselling, or any regulated service.
In accordance with the membership contract members self-directed processes that do not succeed are offered a credit note to offset against alternative self-directed processes as per the membership contract.
The FCA’s continued speculation does not meet the threshold of “reasonable cause” to suspect a breach of FSMA and violates the principle of proportionate enforcement enshrined in the FCA’s Enforcement Guide.
The FCA’s most recent enforcement posture—while publicly abandoning its proposal to “name and shame” early—has nonetheless been used covertly to coerce, investigate, or arrest private individuals operating within private members associations, without regulatory clarity, authority, or due process.
Enforcement efforts have been selectively and punitively focused on [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate and by inference Iain Clifford the living man, while other key individuals including [BARRY MCDOWELL] and [AMY KELLY], both of whom were senior figures at MATRIXFREEDOM and were arrested under the same investigative banner have not been subjected to formal proceedings. This disparity exposes regulatory bias, procedural inconsistency, and institutional malfeasance.
The FCA’s reliance on reputational tactics, speculative reasoning, and private correspondence falls afoul of its duties under:
PRIN 2.1.1R Principles 2, 6 and 7
GEN 2.2.1R (communication obligations)
SYSC 3.2.6R (internal systems and fairness)
And the overarching duty of proportionality and lawful objectivity.
I therefore assert that the FCA’s treatment of this matter is not motivated by public interest or statutory compliance, but instead constitutes a targeted regulatory vendetta, rooted in prejudice against my philosophical and lawful standpoints.
Jurisdictional Overreach:
A significant percentage of MATRIXFREEDOM members reside outside the United Kingdom, in jurisdictions where the FCA has no territorial authority.
PMA members engage under private international agreements beyond the reach of UK statutory regulation. The FCA lacks any binding treaty, agreement, or jurisdictional basis to investigate activity outside its perimeter.
Breach of Regulatory Principles:
The FCA is in breach of its own statutory obligations under the FCA Handbook, including:
PRIN 2.1.1R
Principle 2: Conduct business with due skill, care, and diligence.
Principle 6: Treat customers fairly.
Principle 7: Communicate clearly and not misleadingly.
GEN 2.2.1R – Requires that notifications and investigatory actions are conducted in a manner reasonably expected to reach the intended recipient and uphold fairness.
SYSC 3.2.6R – Mandates sound internal governance and communication systems, which the FCA has failed to demonstrate in its actions to date.
In addition to the jurisdictional and procedural defects outlined above, I assert that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has failed in its primary statutory obligation: to protect the interests of consumers.
Under Section 1C of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the FCA’s operational objective is to:
“secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers.”
Yet despite this statutory mandate, the FCA:
Permits systemic fraud in the financial system—including deceptive practices in the UK mortgage, loan, deposit, credit, pension, and investment markets—by ignoring overwhelming evidence that:
Banks do not lend depositor funds, as admitted in Bank of England, Federal Reserve, and Professor Richard Werner’s technical papers.
Banks securitise consumers’ own credit, without disclosing the legal transfer of rights or the creation of currency from the consumer’s own signatures.
Consumers are charged interest and principal on credit they themselves originated.
The FCA:
Fails to challenge or investigate these practices, despite serving as the UK’s statutory conduct regulator. This failure allows the largest consumer deception in UK financial history to persist unchecked.
Knowingly conceals the reality of money creation, asset custodianship, and the destruction of equitable title—depriving millions of consumers of lawful remedies, clarity, and recourse.
Ignores lawful, well-evidenced public challenges (including my own, supported by witness testimony and verified research) in favour of
targeting PMAs and private lawful associations that pose no harm and have zero consumer complaints.
This institutional failure further undermines the FCA’s credibility in launching or sustaining an investigation against [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate and MATRIXFREEDOM, under the guise of public interest. The real and present danger lies not at MATRIXFREEDOM but via the FCA’s abdication of duty, failure of public protection, and complicity in systemic deceit.
I am the occupant of the office of the General Executor appointed under a Will and Testament of the decedent estate known as [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate, a body corporate. From the office of the General Executor, the General Executor holds exclusive lawful authority to administer and protect the estate. No court, regulatory body, or agency—including the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)—has any lawful authority to serve documents upon or act against the estate without General Executor consent and consent from Iain Clifford the living man, which has not been and will not be given as per the various notices served on the parties to this matter since June 2023.
Absence of Crown Agency at Southwark Crown Court It is asserted that Southwark Crown Court operates absent a verified Crown Agent duly authorized to act on behalf of the Crown in relation to this matter. The absence of such an official representative calls into question the court’s standing and lawful authority to proceed.
Unverified Judicial Oath of Office It is further submitted that Judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER] may not have executed the requisite judicial oath under statutory and common law provisions. Without a sworn oath of office, there exists no lawful authority for the judge to preside over the matter, rendering all judicial acts void ab initio.
Requirement for Evidence Accordingly, the court must provide conclusive evidence establishing:
The presence of a duly appointed Crown Agent authorized to act in this matter.
A legally executed judicial oath signed by Judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER], affirming his lawful capacity to adjudicate.
Motion for Immediate Dismissal In the absence of such evidence, the matter is hereby challenged on jurisdictional grounds and must be struck out as per the motions filed. The court cannot lawfully proceed absent confirmation of these fundamental prerequisites.
A decision was made by Mr Justice [SWEETING], formally known as Sir [DEREK ANTHONY SWEETING], a British High Court judge serving in the King’s Bench Division. He was appointed to the High Court on 11 January 2022 and received his knighthood in July 2023. Before his judicial appointment, he was a King’s Counsel (QC) and chaired the Bar Council in 2021.
Sweeting has faced scrutiny for judicial misconduct, including a 14month delay in delivering a ruling, for which he was formally reprimanded. His background includes military service, having trained at Sandhurst and served as a Tank Commander before transitioning to law.
Failure to Deliver Timely Judgments:
Sweeting delayed rulings in multiple cases, including an injunction application from North Warwickshire Borough Council against ecoprotesters at a Shell oil terminal.
His ruling in that case was delivered 14 months after the initial hearing, far beyond reasonable judicial timelines.
Judicial Conduct Investigation Findings:
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) found that Sweeting failed to recognize the consequences of his actions and did not issue judgments in a timely manner.
He cited personal matters and a busy schedule as reasons for the delays, but the investigation determined that these were not sufficient justifications.
Formal Reprimand & Public Warning:
The Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor issued formal advice for misconduct, acknowledging the delays as a breach of judicial duty.
The JCIO’s statement emphasized that judges must display diligence and care in their duties, and Sweeting’s failure to do so warranted
official reprimand.
Without notice or attendance, violating the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) [DEREK ANTHONY SWEETING] misrepresented the timing of the judicial review application, falsely asserting it was out of time despite evidence to the contrary.
The special appearance request of Iain Clifford (the living man) was ignored, treating the claimant solely as the corporate entity [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate.
Judicial Bias & Prejudgment:
The refusal to extend time without proper consideration suggests prejudgment rather than an impartial review of the facts.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), acting as an interested party, appears to have influenced the judicial process, raising concerns about institutional bias.
The judge’s decision was made in private, without transparency, reinforcing the perception of prejudicial intent.
Misrepresentation of Legal Standing:
By treating [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate as a corporate entity, the court failed to recognise the rights of Iain Clifford the living man, denying fundamental protections under common law.
The refusal to acknowledge trust violations and fiduciary mismanagement evidences that the judge and FCA acted improperly.
The constructive trust framework was ignored, allowing the FCA to retain control despite clear legal directives to collapse the trust.
Evidence of Institutional Deception:
The misallocation of fiduciary roles suggests an attempt to shift liability away from the Crown and onto the [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate as a corporate entity.
The failure to provide transparency in the judicial process, combined with misrepresentation of procedural facts, indicates institutional deception.
The denial of access to justice through improper procedural rulings further supports the claim of judicial misconduct.
Unless order 34 2023 is struck out and the constructive trust collapsed as per the notices and motions filed a claim will be raised against [DEREK ANTHONY SWEETING] via:
A court of record convened by a sheriff.
A trial by jury of (12 jurors) to decide if harm has been caused to Iain Clifford.
The judge if convicted served with a formal claim for harm caused to the claimant, holding [DEREK ANTHONY SWEETING] fully accountable under the law. D. Cite:
Magna Carta 1215, Clause 39 – Establishes the right to trial by jury and protection against unlawful judicial decisions.
Common Law Principles – Courts of record have inherent jurisdiction to hear cases involving judicial misconduct and procedural violations.
Bill of Rights 1689 – Affirms the right to petition the Crown for redress of grievances, including judicial misconduct.
Fraud Act 2006 – Establishes liability for fraudulent misrepresentation, including trust fraud.
I do not reside within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. I live in a nation that does not maintain extradition, deportation or any other treaties with the UK. I have rescinded UK voter status, rebutted all presumptions of statutory jurisdiction, and do not consent to the artificial merger of the legal fiction [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] with the living man Iain
Clifford.
Classification as a Constructive Trust
Order 34 of 2023 operates as a constructive trust, imposed without mutual consent and structured in a manner inconsistent with equitable principles. The Southwark Crown Court has failed to provide proof that it
functions under the authority of a Crown agent, nor has the presiding judge demonstrated evidence of having sworn an oath to the King, raising concerns about the legitimacy of judicial oversight in fiduciary matters.
Under the doctrine of constructive trusts, a trust arises when assets or liabilities are managed in a way that creates a fiduciary relationship, even if not explicitly agreed upon. However, where such an arrangement lacks transparency and legal basis, it may constitute trust fraud.
Misallocation of Fiduciary Roles
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in its role as prosecutor and apparent settlor, has unilaterally appointed the judge as legal executor while presuming that [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] the decedent estate is the trustee. This misallocation of roles leads to several violations:
The lawful office of general executor of the [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate has issued formal instructions to modify trust administration.
Under Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, the Crown holds legal title to [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP], meaning the Crown bears the liability for all fiduciary obligations.
The beneficiary cannot serve as trustee, creating an inherent conflict if [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford (the living man) is designated trustee.
Cite, Per Attorney General v. Reid [1994] 1 AC 324, fiduciaries must act in the sole interest of beneficiaries. The failure to appropriately assign trustee duties constitutes mismanagement of fiduciary responsibilities, undermining both judicial and administrative processes.
Failure to Collapse the Trust
A trust must serve the beneficiary’s interest and hold equitable value. If the trust serves no beneficial purpose, maintaining it constitutes an unjust retention of control, violating equitable principles. As established in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12, trusts exist to prevent unjust enrichment and must adhere to equitable doctrines.
Since the Crown (represented by the judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER] and FCA holds the liability, the trust must be dissolved pursuant to lawful beneficiary directives. Failure to act violates trust obligations and breaches fiduciary duty.
Legal Consequences of Trust Violations
The FCA and judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER] actions appear to constitute constructive trust fraud, with serious legal repercussions, including:
Judicial intervention—Courts may mandate trust dissolution due to mismanagement.
Removal of fiduciaries—Executors or trustees failing to act lawfully may be removed.
Financial liability—Improper fiduciary actions can result in financial penalties.
Trust fraud investigation—Legal bodies may review the FCA and judicial conduct for potential fraudulent manipulation of trust principles.
Cite:
Under Snell’s Equity (34th ed.), fiduciary breaches require corrective judicial oversight. Given these violations, there is a strong basis to demand corrective action, including reassignment of fiduciary roles, dissolution of unjust constructive trust arrangements, and enforcement of beneficiary rights.
Cite, Relevant UK Statutory References:
Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 – Establishes that estates dependent on a life tenant must be properly administered, and failure to prove a life tenant’s existence can result in legal consequences.
Cestui Que Vie Act 1707 – Provides mechanisms for verifying the death of individuals presumed to be alive, ensuring estates are not unlawfully retained.
Trustee Act 1925 – Defines trustee responsibilities and outlines legal remedies for breaches of fiduciary duty.
Fraud Act 2006 – Establishes criminal liability for fraudulent misrepresentation, including trust fraud.
Senior Courts Act 1981 – Grants the High Court authority to intervene in cases of judicial misconduct or improper trust administration.
I act in the capacity of President of a self-declared, independent nation, lawfully constituted through the universally recognised right to self-determination. I assert
diplomatic immunity, and both the nation I represent and the nation in which I live do not recognise statutory civil constraint orders issued by UK authorities. No agreement exists permitting jurisdictional overreach, and no extradition or enforcement cooperation exists with the United Kingdom.
FCA Fraud on the Court
Since 2019, the FCA has pursued investigation and proceedings against [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate and Iain Clifford the living man and other members of MATRIXFREEDOM without presenting any evidence of activities requiring FCA authorisation. This pattern
constitutes fraud upon the court and renders all proceedings derived therefrom—including arrest warrants—void ab initio.
The FCA’s staff have acted with malfeasance, by ignoring regulatory obligations, falsifying standing, and presenting misleading claims to the court.
I Iain Clifford have not authorised service of legal documents via iain@mtrxf.org or iain@wealthfortress.co.uk and have put all parties to this matter on formal notice that [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate is not the registrant of iain@mtrxf.org or iain@wealthfortress.co.uk and Iain Clifford the living man cannot live at an email address.
The addresses iain@mtrxf.org and iain@wealthfortress.co.uk redirect to the Office of the General Executor, this office is administered by others and neither [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford review or open the emails but in the most part the emails are not opened. The email accounts for iain@mtrxf.org and iain@wealthfortress.co.uk are not owned, operated, or controlled by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] or iain Clifford the living man.
Neither email address has never been declared by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] or Iain Clifford as a legal service address in any official capacity. The passive redirection of emails that are mostly unread by anyone does not constitute lawful service under civil procedure norms.
The FCA secured a court order from Judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER] permitting service via iain@mtrxf.org, an address:
Not owned or operated by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford (the living man).
Subject to automatic redirection to the Office of the General Executor for the decedent estate and not opened or read by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford (the living man).
iain@mtrxf.org was explicitly disclaimed via formal notice renouncing consent of service, the notice that remains unrebutted served on all parties to this matter.
CPR Breaches
CPR 6.23(1)(d) and Practice Direction 6A para 4.1 – Require express prior consent and clear address designation.
CPR 6.3 and 6.26 – Mandate that electronic service be valid only where authorized.
CPR 3.1(2)(m) – Requires procedural integrity and fairness in case management.
CPR 6.26 – Deemed Service Requires Compliance
Even if documents are sent electronically, they are only “deemed served” if the method complies with the rules. The email addresses do not belong to [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford (the living man) and the FCA cannot rely on deemed service.
The presumption that service was valid through unverified addresses, despite formal rebuttal, represents a material violation of these obligations and a breach of natural justice.
Practice Direction 6A, para 4.1 – Reasonable Expectation of Receipt
The court must be satisfied that the method of service is reasonably likely to bring the document to the attention of the recipient. If someone else filters or summarizes the content before
it reaches [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford (the living man), that chain of custody breaks the requirement of direct notice.
Case Law and Precedent, Courts have consistently held that service must be personal, direct, and verifiable. Neither email account is under the control of [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford (the living man), and use of the emails for service has been rebutted rendering service to these email accounts in valid — even if [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford (the living man) may have received a summary of some of the documents sent by the FCA.
FCA Handbook Breaches re Service
PERG 15.3 – Requires informed consent and reasonable expectation of receipt.
GEN 2.2.1R – Requires methods of communication reasonably likely to reach the intended party.
DISP 1.3.1R – Obligates firms to act fairly and not misleadingly.
SYSC 3.2.6R – Mandates effective internal controls for communication.
PRIN 2.1.1R:
i. Principle 2: Due skill, care, and diligence. ii.
Principle 6: Customer interest and fairness.
iii. Principle 7: Clear, fair, and not misleading communication.
Judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER] orders are ultra virus and the FCA act beyond their lawful authority by:
Issuing an order without jurisdiction over the [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or Iain Clifford the living man;
Authorising substituted service without satisfying the statutory preconditions;
Ignoring rebuttals and notices lawfully served;
The order 34 2023 and the FCA’s application for punishment are ultra vires and are beyond the legal power or authority of the issuing body. An ultra vires act is void ab initio and cannot be cured by estoppel, delay, or acquiescence.
Serving emails on iain@mtrxf.org and iain@wealthfortress.co.uk does not constitute valid service under statute or procedural rules and by separate motions order 34 2023 and the FCA’s application for punishment must be struck out on the following grounds:
The FCA has not lawfully served any documents, including Order 34/2023, witness statements, or any summons, in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules. The
attempted service to iain@mtrxf.org and iain@wealthfortress.co.uk was:
D. Not authorised by the [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate or the Office of the General Executor or Iain Clifford;
E. Not supported by express consent under CPR 6.23(1)(d);
F. Rebutted by prior affidavit and formal notice on record.
The FCA is attempting to seek punitive or custodial measures against [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate without ever effecting valid service of any originating process or supporting evidence, violating both CPR 81 (Contempt) and principles of natural justice.
The Court has no jurisdiction to consider applications for punishment where:
The party seeking relief (FCA) has not complied with CPR;
C.
The Defendant has challenged jurisdiction under CPR 11 and served an existing and subsequent Motion to Strike Out Order 34/2023;
The foundational orders sought to be enforced (including Order 34/2023) are subject to pending strike-out or have no lawful effect due to defective service and all substantive points asserted in other notices and affidavits.
It is a settled principle that no punitive application may proceed where there has been no lawful notice, due opportunity to respond, and adherence to due process. Any such motion is an abuse of process and should be struck out under CPR 3.4.
The Defendant has filed extensive affidavit evidence asserting:
Lawful excuse for non-attendance;
Rebuttal of jurisdiction;
Fear of unlawful incarceration due to regulatory overreach and defective proceedings.
Pursuing punishment where jurisdiction is in dispute and procedural service remains defective would constitute a gross miscarriage of justice and possible violation of Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial).
FCA malfeasance.
FCA staff [ALASTAIR MACKENZIE] [MATTHEW STONE] [PIETRO
BOFFA] and others have engaged in malfeasance in public office, including misrepresentation and abuse of regulatory authority.
Pattern of Bias, Selective Enforcement, and Public Record.
D.
A repeat of the strategy FCA used to ruin UKITI’s joint venture with Stargate Capital Management in 2018.
The FCA’s speculative and unsubstantiated allegations have also resulted in the arrest of [BARRY MCDOWELL] and [AMY KELLY], both of whom operated in senior leadership roles within MATRIXFREEDOM’s private members association. Notably, the FCA has not pursued any formal proceedings against either of them.
E. This disparity reveals a clear pattern of regulatory bias and malfeasance, consistent with a targeted vendetta against me, Iain Clifford, rather than a neutral or evidence-based investigation. It further undermines any claim that the FCA’s actions are rooted in public interest or lawful objectivity.
If Judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER] attempts to issue an arrest warrant against [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] or Iain Clifford, despite prior affidavits served since 28 May 2025 and notices since June 2023, the act constitutes a wilful breach of judicial oath and invoke liability under the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office, as established in AG’s Reference No. 3 of 2003.
Diplomatic Status and Immunity
I act in the capacity of President of a self-declared, independent nation, lawfully constituted through the universally recognised right to self-determination. I assert diplomatic immunity, and both the nation I represent and the nation in which I live do not recognise
statutory civil constraint orders issued by UK authorities. No agreement exists permitting jurisdictional overreach, and no
E.
extradition or enforcement cooperation exists with the United Kingdom.
Lawful Standing of Sovereign Nation and International Recognition:
I affirm that the sovereign nation I represent is established under universally recognised principles of self-determination, pursuant to: D. UN Charter, Article 1 – Right of peoples to self-determination.
Common Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR – Right to freely determine political status.
UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) – On the legality of sovereign declaration.
Montevideo Convention (1933) – Declarative criteria of statehood.
ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo (2010) – No prohibition on declarations of independence.
Accordingly, my diplomatic status and jurisdictional autonomy are valid under international law, and any effort to override them constitutes a violation of sovereign equality and non-intervention.
This affidavit shall be read in conjunction with, and not in isolation from, all other affidavits by the Office of the General Executor of [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate and Iain Clifford since the hearing of 28 May 2025 and notices lawfully served prior to the hearing of 28th May 2025. Affidavits and notices remain valid, unrebutted, and are hereby incorporated by reference with full legal and lawful effect.
Additionally, I affirm that all affidavits served upon the FCA and the court since 28 May 2025 and notices served prior to 28 May 2025 have been made public record, in accordance with the principles of transparency, accountability, and lawful notice. These documents remain unrebutted and stand as a matter of public knowledge and judicial record.
I respectfully request the Court by additional motion:
Quash the FCA’s application for punishment or committal to prison, the application struck out in its entirety; an arrest warrant, if granted will be issued unlawfully and cannot be lawfully or legally served.
Declare all attempted FCA service of documents and presentments as void.
Acknowledge the pending challenge to Order 34/2023 and defective service as fatal to any enforcement application.
Recognise the Office of the General Executor with exclusive administrative authority.
Affirm the absence of any regulated activity by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate and Iain Clifford the living man or any other member of MATRIXFREEDOM.
Collapse the constructive trust 34 2023 as per the beneficiaries wish.
Vacate these proceedings on grounds of fraud, lack of jurisdiction, improper service and breach of domestic and international law.
Attorney in Fact
I exercise my lawful right under the common law of agency to appoint [DAVID AYERST] as an attorney-in-fact, via a private Power of Attorney, to act on behalf of [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate in a limited and specific capacity. This right is preserved under the principles of freedom of contract and self-representation, and does not require leave of the court unless expressly prohibited by statute — which it is not.
I cite:
Law of Property Act 1925 (UK), Section 136 – which supports the assignability of rights and delegation of authority.
Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (UK) – which governs the creation and recognition of powers of attorney in England and Wales.
CPR 21.2 and 21.3 (by analogy) – which recognize representation by others in certain circumstances, reinforcing that the court does not prohibit lawful agency where properly declared.
I invoke international principles:
Article 6 of the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Agency (1978) – affirms that the internal relationship between principal and agent is governed by the law chosen by the principal, reinforcing your sovereign right to appoint a representative.
My appointment of a lawful agent is not a waiver of standing, but a protective measure consistent with both domestic and international norms.
Were it not for the clear and present risk of unlawful incarceration due to the asserted malfeasance and breach of oath, I, Iain Clifford the living man would appear as the beneficiary of the [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] decedent estate and occupant of the Office of the General Executor in propria persona, as is my unalienable right but is so far evident that this delegation does not waive or diminish the status and standing of iain Clifford the living man.
While I have served multiple affidavits, notices, and motions that lawfully rebut the validity of Order 34/2023—on both factual and jurisdictional grounds—there has been no formal judicial ruling striking out the order. Accordingly, it remains on the record, albeit unlawfully and in breach of due process.
I assert that the continued existence of Order 34/2023, despite unrebutted evidence and procedural defects, reflects a preconceived enforcement agenda that appears to operate beyond the impartial discretion of judge [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER]. This fact appears to undermine the integrity of the proceedings and violates the principles of natural justice.
I have credible evidence that attending the hearing would expose Iain Clifford the living man to a significant risk of unlawful arrest, detention, or harm, as this matter despite service of all prior notices and affidavits has not already been vacated or stayed and the constructive trust 34 2023 not collapsed, I invoke my common law defence of necessity or lawful excuse. This is especially relevant because:
I have served notices and affidavits rebutting jurisdiction;
I have documented threats or prior misconduct by the FCA;
I am acting to preserve my liberty and safety in good faith.
All affidavits and notices relevant to this rebuttal have been served on the record and made public for transparency. They remain unrebutted and in full force. 73. I challenge the jurisdiction of Southwark Crown Court on the basis that:
No Crown Agent is present to oversee judicial functions, following the restructuring under the Crown Agents Act 1995.
The court operates without direct Crown oversight, resembling a body corporate rather than a sovereign judicial entity.
Jurisdiction must be proven, not presumed, particularly in light of procedural defects and bias in Order 34/2023.
Order 34/2023 appears to be a preconceived enforcement action, driven by a 16-year vendetta by the FCA against me, rather than a lawful adjudication based on due process.
The FCA has abused its regulatory powers by:
Pursuing enforcement despite defective service and lack of jurisdiction.
Ignoring procedural fairness and natural justice in its handling of this matter.
Engaging in selective enforcement while failing to protect consumers from systemic financial misconduct.
The FCA’s actions demonstrate regulatory bias, targeting lawful private initiatives while permitting misconduct among regulated firms.
UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING JUDGE [ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER]’S OATH.
Under the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, all judges must swear an oath to uphold justice without fear or favour.
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
16th Day of June Twenty Twenty-Five.
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.
Proper Name: Andrew Michael Signature: Andrew Michael
Date: 9th June 2025
Proper Name: David Ayerst
Signature: David Ayerst Date: 9th June 2025 Witness 3
Proper Name: Angela John Signature: Angela John
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
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.