Annex 2 (Expanded): Institutional Silence

Annex 2 (Expanded): Institutional Silence – The Attorney General’s Constructive Endorsement of Regulatory Abuse

I. Contextual Positioning

Despite receipt of:

formal declarations of procedural defect,
rescission of all UK service addresses,
documented evidence of fictitious prosecutorial authority (e.g., “Alastair Mackenzie”),
and judicial dishonour via Judge Baumgartner’s conduct,

…no corrective engagement, oversight, or protective intervention was undertaken by the Attorney General, nor their representatives. This deliberate non-engagement constitutes a failure to uphold the fundamental obligations of the office under Section 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and common law principles of ministerial accountability.

II. Doctrine of Passive Ratification

The Attorney General’s silence functioned as an administrative ratification of fraud. By allowing enforcement escalation without remedy despite procedural nullity, the office:

endorsed contempt-driven escalation,
enabled reputational sabotage,
and permitted cross-jurisdictional exposure contrary to natural justice.

This stands in direct violation of the UK’s obligation under Article 13, which requires not only remedy but mechanisms to prevent continuation of harm.

III. Strategic Use of GCRO Firewall

The General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO), itself voidable and ultra vires, appears to have been used by the Attorney General’s office as a jurisdictional firewall, avoiding legal review by framing the applicant as a vexatious or abusive litigant — despite no evidence of procedural misconduct or excessive filings in relevant jurisdictions.

This reliance on the GCRO to exclude legitimate rights claims contradicts the spirit and letter of ECHR jurisprudence (see: Tinnelly & Sons v. UK [1998]), whereby administrative tactics must not obstruct core access to remedy.

IV. Constructive Denial of Remedy – Functional Breakdown

ECHR Mechanism Used	Effect on Applicant	Breach
Silence by AG Office	Escalation of unlawful enforcement	Article 13
Non-response to rescission	Ongoing reputational harm	Article 8
Tactical reliance on GCRO	Denial of judicial review	Article 6
No inquiry into FCA fraud allegations	Constructive shielding of regulatory misconduct	Article 13

V. Proposed Relief Measures

Declare that the UK Attorney General’s non-intervention breached Article 13 due to systemic denial of remedy.
Recognize the constructive use of ministerial silence as a strategic tool of state suppression.
Direct interim measures to halt any enforcement that derives from the contaminated process.