V
Southwark Crown Court
Decision Maker
&
Financial Conduct Authority
Interested Party
| I’s RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND JUSTICE | 3 |
| SUMMARY OF GROUNDS TO QUASH THE SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT ORDER 34 | 4 |
| :iain-clifford: stamp STATUS | 6 |
| IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Legal Person | 8 |
| DECLARATION | 9 |
| THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION | 11 |
| REBUTTAL OF BAR GUILD PRESUMPTIONS | 13 |
| LAWFUL DISSENT UNDER MAGNA CARTA ARTICLE 61 | 17 |
| STATEMENT OF FACTS RELIED ON | 18 |
| ANNEX | 39 |
| ORDER REQUIRED | 40 |
i, Iain-Clifford: Stamp, date of birth 31st December 1965 of Courtyard House, Park Lane, Upper Swanmore, Southampton, [SO32 2QQ], United Kingdom am a natural person, a sentient living being, a sui juris (beneficiary), a Secured Party and Creditor to and Grantor of the IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Cestui Qui Vie trust with NI number NH 43 80 40 D and in this matter a Belligerent Claimant in Person.
All references to i or i’s mean the natural person a sentient living being.
i reserve All Rights that are Inherent Rights of i without prejudice as Sovereign under Constitutional Acts and the laws of Nature.
i am a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood being, from now on “Secured Party,” appearing in restricted jurisdiction in proper capacity with unlimited liability, possessing undiminished standing in law, as a sovereign, spiritually autonomous, sentient man with free will, unalienable rights, and unalloyed authority for upholding said rights, and beneficiary by blood, birth, innate being, and descent of Original Jurisdiction defined and secured in law by the eternal Covenant of Secured Party with the Creator, in accord with guarantees secured, inter alia, by the Magna Carta 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689.
i am the unlimited grantor, authorised agent, and representative of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, an ens legis or legal person.
i am not now, nor may be construed as being, an accommodation party, nor a surety, for IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, nor any derivative, nor any orthographic variation, of said Name, nor any other juristic person, and am indemnified and held harmless by IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP via an Indemnification And Hold Harmless Agreement No 31121965-ICS-CN (annexed to this document at page 39) from and against any claims, debts, legal actions, citations, orders, warrants, judgments, awards, demands, liabilities, losses, depositions, summonses, lawsuits, costs, fines, liens, levies, penalties, damages including direct, liquidated, consequential, incidental, and otherwise interests, and expenses whatsoever, both absolute and contingent, as are due and as might become due, now existing and as might hereafter arise, and as might be suffered by, incurred by, and imposed on IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP for any reason, purpose, and cause whatsoever. (Copy of Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement is annexed to this Bundle at page 39).
i am the beneficiary of the Cestui Que Trust that was set up by my mother when the Crown registered IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP via a birth registration process that created a Birth Certificate and a Certificate of Live Birth, and I have an equitable interest in this trust.
i filed various documents including a UCC1 filing and became a Secured Party & Creditor on 11/04/2023 via my Natural Person holding of $100,000,000 lien over the Cestui Qui Vie trust IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP with NI number NH 99.40.83.D via a Uniform Commercial Code 1 (UCC1) lien filing registration with filing reference 202304070122214 (copy annexed at page 39 of this bundle).
i filed a sworn and notorised Notice of Understanding Intent and Claim of Right on the King Charles III, the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and the Home Secretary Suella Braverman on 10.07.2023 (copy annexed to this Bundle at page 39), this unrebutted notice is a public record of the Claim of Right for I and establishes “lawful excuse”, a tenet of common Law, and I operate under “lawful dissent” due to the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta on 23rd March 2001 amongst other rights.
On 10.06.2023 i issued a sworn Oath to the twenty-five Barons that i stand with them in lawful dissent under Article 61 of the Magna Carta. The Barons invoked Article 61 of the Magna Carta in 2001 and as i stand with the Barons, i lawfully possess immunity from any crown or parliamentary mandate or law, as i have expressed my intention to distress or distrain the Crown under Magna Carta Article 61 (invocation of Magna Carta Article 61 at annexed at page 39 of this Bundle).
i choose not to obey a warrant, a court, a tribunal, Statute/s, Act/s or order/s; as is the right of i.
i, am not, and may not be construed as being a surety, nor an accommodation party, for IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, nor any juristic person, ens legis.
i, am neither a juristic person, legal fiction, entity, individual, organisation, association, voluntary association, joint-stock association, company, co-partnership, firm, nor order, nor is i an organised society, incorporated society, society aggregate, part of any aggregate, automatic aggregate, nor public utility aggregate.
i am a Private and Free Man, described by the Lord God in Genesis 2:7 as a Living Soul, existing under God’s law and his grace alone. i am among God’s people, and i have assumed among the Powers of the Earth, granted by the Lord God Almighty, the Separate and Equal Station to which the laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle me, Giving me dominion over all things (Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 27-28).
i hold a common law copyright of the name IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP as detailed in the Annex to this document at page 39 of this Bundle.
i am the beneficial owner of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP LTD with company number 15132951.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ltd acts as the Trustee of
i execute documents solely as the authorised representative of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ens Legis with NI number NH 99.40.83.D is not I it is a legal person or corporation in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, as a sub-entity of the United Kingdom Limited, which is a corporate entity and not a country. The existence of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP ens legis is evidenced by a Certified Copy of an Entry (birth certificate).
The Interpretations Act 1978 defines a person as including a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate.
“A legal person is any subject matter to which the law attributes a merely legal or fictitious personality. This extension is one of the most noteworthy feats of the legal imagination; legal persons, being the arbitrary creations of the law, may be of as many kinds as the law pleases. Those recognised by our own system, however, all fall within a single class, namely, corporations or bodies corporate.” Source: Jurisprudence 7th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd (1924), Section 113, p.336.
i have formed IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ltd to control IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, the ens legis, a corporation as it transforms IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP into a living man on the land. I claim the name as a legal entity.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP Ltd resets all contracts with the Crown however created, and no previous contracts exist, which means that FSMA 2000 and POCA 2002 and the Courts Act 2003 have no jurisdiction over IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP irrespective of what i say (detailed in the Statement of Facts section of this Bundle at page 18 of this Bundle) regarding lawful dissent under Magna Carta Article 61 and ignoring what I say about that there has been no Monarch since 1973 to provide Royal Assent to FSMA 2000 and POCA 2002 and the Courts Act 2003.
DECLARATION
i sincerely hold spiritual convictions and creed, do herewith declare and state that:
i can competently state the matters set forth herewith.
i have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
All the facts stated herein are true, correct, complete, and certain, admissible as evidence, not misleading.
As an existential, sentient, biological, spiritually autonomous man, i concur with the spirit and guarantees stated in this Unanimous Declaration:
i, hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that their Creator endows them with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness;
i, act with rights granted by Life, i.e., given by the “Creator,” supra, and upheld by all valid and just law;
i, neither consent to nor assent to be bound by any:
presumption that i am other than an actual, biological, and spiritual being with undiminished standing in law and sovereign character;
actions by anyone based on fiction;
actions by anyone based on fraud; iv. any presumptions of law;
any unrevealed presumption of fact;
any order issued by Southwark Crown Court, a Bar Guild court that contravenes my rights under the Magna Carta 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689, and:
Would cause me to commit treason by breaching my oath and allegiance to the 25 Barons that invoked Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 when they invoked Article 61 via their petition to Queen Elizabeth II on March 23, 2001, and:
As there has been no Monarch since 1973 and, therefore, no “Regall” Parliament all Acts and Statutes that appeared to have received Royal Assent since 1973 did
not and therefore have no Jurisdiction over I, and due to I’s lawful dissent under Article 61 of the Magna Carta, no Acts and Statutes since 2001 have jurisdiction over I.
The British Constitution is said to be ‘unwritten’ as the United Kingdom does not possess a single comprehensive constitution, but its constitutional principle derives from the common law. Nevertheless, these historic statutes set out the constitutional principles.
The primary significance of classing an Act as a constitutional Act lies in the nature of the interpretative criteria that apply to it. In particular, the rights the Act confers, having the quality of constitutional rights, are regarded by the courts as fundamental and not to be displaced except by clear words: The Magna Carta (1215); the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1701); the Septennial Act 1715 are such constitutional Acts.
Constitutional Laws of Great Britain are the most potent laws that we have.
These protect our liberty, rights and self-governance and were designed to protect our rights as people. Our right to enforce these laws, to limit Governmental powers and the judiciary and maintain rights to demand trial by Jury rather than a Jury Trial.
The British Constitution was designed and created by the people and cannot lawfully be taken away from the people without completely transparent, lawful consent or defeat of open war. Although not written on one coded document, the British Constitution is spread out over many documents and is the grandfather of the Constitution of the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. Apart from Biblical Text, it is the ultimate Law of the Land.
Parliament cannot change it, but only via a constitutional convention of the people. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men and Women are created equal, that their Creator endows them with certain un-alien-able Rights.
The Magna Carta is the first treaty which cannot be revoked and predates Parliament.
Common Law is the will and custom of the people.
Statute Law is the will of Parliament, supposedly representing the people’s will.
As with the Rule Of Law, no one is above the law, including police, armed forces and the Monarchs, whether incorporated or not. Parliament is answerable to the people.
It is a mistake to think that the Magna Carta is no longer in force since Parliament was not party to the original Common Law contract of 1215 and therefore, its original provisions still apply today. Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls from 1962-1982, described the 1215 Magna Carta as “The greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.
Halisbury’s Laws of England Vol. 44 clearly describes Magna Carta 1215 as a “constitutional statute.” Both the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights written within the Declaration of Rights are
binding in perpetuity at the very least until an open convention of the people decides otherwise. The Magna Carta affirmed the people’s right to such things as trial by Jury, protection from unlawful governance and the right, protection from excessive fines and the right to rebel against unconstitutional Government. “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”. Revelations section 98 verse 5. “And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges belongs to all humankind, and is justifiable before me.
i have formed IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP LTD Company number 15132951 a UK Limited Company that acts the Trustee of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP the legal person ens legis with NI Number NH43 80 40 D.
i am the Surety and Grantor and have a commercial interest in IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP and this has been entered into the Public Record
i rebut the (12) private presumptions of Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity,
Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Agent and Agency, Incompetence, and Guilt: presumptions presented by the Private Bar Guild of which Southward Crown Court belongs as it is an Admiralty Court; and nullify its “jurisdiction” via my rebuttal.
i rebut all twelve (12) critical presumptions asserted by the Private Bar Guild.
The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a state Court is a matter for the public record when in fact, it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating the matter is to be on the Public Records, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules;
i reject the Presumption of Public Record as it is, by definition, a presumption and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government or public officials by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private “superior” oaths to their Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the Claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and, therefore, trustees under public Oath;
i reject the Presumption of Public Service as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting as “public officials” who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that Oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartially and fairly as dictated by their Oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public Oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If
challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath;
i reject the Presumption of Public Oath as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of “public officials” acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their Oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors, and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions;
i reject the Presumption of Immunity as it is a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
The Presumption of Summons is that by custom, a summons unrebutted stands; therefore, one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the Court. Attendance to Court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed before choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of “guilt” stands;
i reject the Presumption of Summons as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
The Presumption of Custody is that by custom, a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands, and therefore, one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by “Custodians”. Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of the property and “things”, not flesh and blood, soul-possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by the rejection of summons and at Court, the presumption stands I am a thing and property and, therefore, lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians;
i reject the Presumption of Custody as it is, by definition, a presumption and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as I may be listed as a “resident” of a ward of a local government area and have listed on my “passport” the letter P, I am a pauper and therefore under the “Guardian” powers of the Government and its agents as a “Court of Guardians”. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate I am both a general guardian and general Executor of the matter (trust) before
the Court, the presumption stands, and I am, by default, a pauper and lunatic and, therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court);
i reject the Presumption of Guardians as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume I accept the office of trustee as a “public servant” and “government employee” just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state I am merely visiting by “invitation” to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction – simply because I “appeared.”
i reject the Presumption of Trustees as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoints the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor. In contrast, the Prosecutor acts as the Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. Suppose the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul. In that case, they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a “false executor” challenging the “rightful” judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of “true” Executor and has the right to have me arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate I am the proper general guardian and general Executor of the matter (trust) before the Court, questioning and challenging whether the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and I am by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the Executor (judge/magistrate) or I am an Executor De Son Tort and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false Claim against me;
i reject the Presumption of the Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary, as it is a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
The Presumption of Agent and Agency is the presumption that under contract law, you have expressed and granted authority to the Judge and Magistrate through the statement of “recognise, understand” or “comprehend” and therefore agree to be bound to a contract.
Therefore, unless all presumptions of agent appointment are rebutted through the use of such formal rejections as “I do not recognise you”, to remove all implied or expressed appointment of the judge, Prosecutor or clerk as agents, the presumption stands. i agree to be contractually bound to perform at the judge’s or magistrate’s direction,
i reject the Presumption of Agent and Agency as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the Law, therefore, incompetent to present yourself and argue correctly. Thus, the judge/magistrate as Executor has the right to have me arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that I know my position as Executor and Beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that i am incompetent, then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient;
i reject the Presumption of Incompetence as it is a presumption that has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.
The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead “guilty”, do not plead or plead “not guilty”. Therefore unless i have previously prepared an affidavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is I am guilty, and the private Bar Guild can hold me until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the Guild wants to profit from me.
i reject the Presumption of Guilt as it is a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;
That my identity can forever be established correctly by my presence as a Conscious Man on the Land being together as may be necessary sworn attestations from friends, family, and other associates;
That this supersedes any necessity to obtain or carry any form of external tokens, such as an Identity Card, for any lawful purpose of establishing my true identity for the simple reason that no such token can ever represent my sovereign soul;
All agreements, contracts, claims, and so on are null and void as they are an unfair or unreasonable violation of my human rights.
Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 has been invoked five times in history; in the year 1216, 1258, 1500 and in 1688/9 during the Glorious Revolution. The fifth time being on the 23rd March 2001, when its invocation was reported by Caroline Davis in the Daily Telegraph on the 24th March 2001. The Queen was constitutionally dethroned as she failed to remedy the grievance, which was the signing of the treasonous Treaty of Nice by Tony Blair on the 26th January 2001. We have not had remedy to date with millions of notices sent to Governments, Clergy, Judiciary and Constabulary, within the commonwealth and former commonwealth countries, which have not been rebutted in substance to date. Anything un-rebutted at law, stands as truth in law. Please read the enclosed notice carefully, Article 61 ends when we have had remedy through an international convention of the people to decide our way forward in a peaceful lawful manner. Sincerely, without any admission of liability whatsoever and, with no attempt to deceive or to appear vexatious or frivolous and, with all my inalienable constitutional rights reserved.
i set out the nature of my application for redress of grievances of an injustice done to i by Southwark Crown Court and The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) acting as Applicants for a restraint order handed down by His honour Judge Baumgarten ref at Southwark Crown Court on 7th June 2023 No 34 2023 against IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP ens legis.
i am a natural living person who has re-established i’s competent living status, so no Cestui Que (Vie) Trust may exist in i’s place. i have formed a limited Company in the name of the legal person known as IAIN CLIFORD STAMP; the Company is IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP LTD, and i have copyrighted the name IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP and all derivatives of the name. i have replaced the Legal person Cestui Que Vie Trust with IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP LTD, and i declare all contracts between the Legal person IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP and the Crown revoked on the grounds that the Crown defrauded i via the unlawful misrepresentation of the negative consequences of the live birth registration and creation of the Legal person IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, and that i never consented to the pledge of my human capital, energy and labour as the res of a Cestui Qui Vie trust as collateral to support the bankruptcy of the Crown:
Fraud vitiates everything that follows, and the Crown has no standing to use the name IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP meaning no Acts, Statutes, or taxes have ever applied to i or, IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.
i make application for a Writ of Certiorari as a prerogative remedy via judicial review to quash the decision of Southwark Crown Court, by reason of an error of law “on the face of the record” the decision was made ultra vires due to a lack of jurisdiction, the decision is unlawful, irrational, unreasonable and harms I via its procedural impropriety.
i was not afforded the minimum standards and did not receive procedural fairness as is my right under the Magna Carta 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689, or the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
The decision is “bias” and i was not offered “the right to be heard”
The applicant for the restraint order, the FCA made an Ex Parte application to Southward Crown Court and presented a false evaluation of the situation consistent with their agenda to harm i which created “bias” and caused the issuance of the order.
The FCA’s application deliberately and falsely portrays a set of circumstances that are not only untrue but are designed to harm I, my Private Members Association MATRIXFREEDOM (MFPMA) and my MF-PMA affiliated administrative companies.
The FCA say in their Skeleton Argument that:
They commenced an investigation in March 2022 into MF-PMA.
“The investigation is into whether individuals including Mr Stamp and corporate entities are conducting regulated activities country to section 19 and 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). The activities under investigation relate to claims management, debt counselling and making unauthorised financial promotions to UK consumers. The FCA also consider that misleading statement to consumers have been made country to section 89 of FSMA (para 16-17)”
Mr Stamp has obtained over £1m in connection with the offending from the MF-PMA group of companies.
That Mr Stamp lives a criminal lifestyle.
There is a real risk of dissipation.
The FCA’s application aimed to confiscate IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP’s personal assets and restrain IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP’s personal bank accounts.
This Particulars of Claim does not form part of an appeal. It is presented as a Writ of Certiorari, a prerogative writ as for the reasons explained herein and an application to quash the Southward Crown Court order due to:
Bias
Unreasonableness
No opportunity to be heard
Private Members Association
Lack of jurisdiction
Lawful excuse
Breaches of my English and British constitutional rights
Breaches of my United Nations General Assembly 1948 Human Rights n. Void order
i made an application to strike out the order at Southwick Crown Court in July 2023 and attended a directions hearing on 3rd August 2023. At the hearing His honour Judge Baumgarten confirmed that he had no jurisdiction to consider the matter as I was challenging the jurisdiction of FSMA 2000, POCA 2002 and Courts Act 2003. His honour Judge Baumgarten recommended that I make an application to the Kings Bench for a judicial review.
BACKGROUND FACTS
It appears that the FCA investigation is part of an ongoing vendetta against IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP that commenced in 2010 when i complained about the FSA’S destruction of my highly successful financial services business, my various complaints to them and the FCA complaints commissioner between 2010 and 2017, my Upper Tribunal case against the FCA and Judicial Review against them in 2017 and 2018.
It appears that the FCA investigation is an attempt to destroy MATRIXFREEDOM (MF- PMA) and deny its members the opportunity to review the education materials supplied by MF-PMA and direct various administrative facilitation processes outlined later in the Affidavit.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP has never been convicted of any offence, sanctioned, or fined.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP is professionally qualified via the Chartered Insurance Institute.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP has operated as the founder, shareholder, and director of many companies in three countries.
None of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP companies have ever had any sanctions or fines imposed on them.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP employs a team of circa 50 full time staff across several UK Companies that support MF-PMA members with unregulated administrative facilitation services.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP has business overheads of circa £2,700,000 per annum.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP is the Chairman of MF-PMA an unincorporated nonprofit Private Members Association.
MF-PMA has more than 50,000 members in multiple countries including the UK, America, Canada, and Australia.
MF-PMA provides its members with a free information and education service that outlines various opportunities and processes that may enable its members to discharge debt, remedy wrongs done to them, operate as a secured party and creditor to receive securities recoupments via tax rebates.
If members wish to direct any of the processes outlined by MF-PMA they are offered an administrative service contract from a range of affiliated companies (including my companies) for them to outsource the administrative facilitation of their process/es under their instructions.
MF-PMA and my administrative facilitation companies do not:
Provide Financial services or legal services.
Provide any services that require a regulatory license.
Specifically, MF-PMA nor my companies provide Claims Management, Debt Counselling, or issue financial promotions.
Act as the members Agent.
Act in any way as the principle.
Do not equal to the Customer, expressly or implicitly, and do not represent the Customers.
Make any warranties that the processes outlined at MF-PMA will achieve the outcome sought by the member.
Provide any timescale assurances for the processes to achieve the outcome sought by the member.
There is no criminal activity and no risk of dissipation of assets.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP does not lead a criminal lifestyle.
The percentage of complaints received from MF-PMA members is less than 1% of the membership.
Neither MF-PMA nor its affiliated administrative facilitation companies have had any complaint upheld against them via any court.
No MF-PMA member has been defrauded by me, my administrative facilitation companies, or any other affiliated administrative facilitation company.
There is no fraud or money laundering via MF-PMA or any administrative facilitation company.
MF-PMA receives a high and regular number of testimonials from its members.
Most new MF-PMA members are referred by existing members.
Prior to any MF-PMA member instructing an administrative process they are required to pass a knowledge accreditation related to the process to enable them to direct it.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP draws no remuneration from MF-PMA and has drawn minimal remuneration from my MF-PMA affiliated administrative facilitation companies.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP withdrawals from the MF-PMA affiliated companies are directors loans which are fully accounted for and repaid within the HMRC parameters.
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP has used directors’ loans to establish reserves in gold and silver bullion and crypto currency.
Since late 2022 IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP has cashed out a large percentage of the reserves and repaid directors loans to IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP companies to enable the companies to pay overhead costs.
The reserve held in IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP personal accounts has suffered substantial losses in crypto currency investments.
The reserve has circa £400,000 remaining in gold and silver bullion.
The FCA application for an ex-parte confiscation and restriction order, Penal notice, warrants to search IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP house, car and office, and the houses and cars of others is bias and is wholly unnecessary as if the FCA had approached IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP would have fully cooperated with the FCA’s investigation.
The seizure of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP phone, computers at IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP’s house and office is bias and wholly unnecessary as it frustrates IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP’s ability to run
IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP businesses and service the interests of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP MFPMA members and perform the administrative facilitation services they have employed.
The FCA have published warning notices against IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP administrative facilitation companies and this has already caused the suspension of a payment gateway account and closure of all UK corporate bank accounts.
The restriction over IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP personal accounts including the gold and silver bullion account is frustrating IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP’s ability to repay IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP’s directors loans and finance IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP’s companies current shortfall of fee income, the frustration is directly caused by the FCA’s investigation and is making it difficult to keep IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP’s companies running.
During the thirteen-hour interview under caution the FCA chose to review an obsolete MF- PMA website from 2021. Advanced many questions that took up most of the interview relating to information about becoming a secured party and creditor and securities tax rebates that have nothing to do with their speculations and are unregulated services.
At the FCA interview (under caution) the FCA presented me with various documents that MFPMA members had issued to their mortgage providers and credit providers, these documents may were not issued by MF-PMA or its affiliated administrative companies acting as the members agent or adviser, the documents were issued from the members under instruction from the members by an administrative company that may not be under my control. The documents do not evidence that IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP or MF-PMA nor its affiliated administrative companies are engaged in Claims management, debt counselling or financial promotions.
BIAS
The FCA have taken no account of the way that MF-PMA operates via a Private Members Association (MF-PMA) and provide no evidence that MF-PMA or any of its affiliated companies provide Claims Management, Debt Counselling, or issue Financial Promotions.
The administrative services provided by the MF-PMA affiliated companies are unregulated, the companies do not seek out consumers for Claims Management, Debt Counselling, nor do they make referrals to others for Claims Management or Debt Counselling or act as the customers agent, or provide any advice.
The restraint order breaches I’s constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights 1689 as detailed at para 92 of the Particulars of Claim.
The restraint order breaches i’s constitutional rights under Magna Carta 1215 as detailed at para 58 of this Bundle.
The restraint order breaches i’s constitutional rights under Habeas Corpus 1679 as detailed at para 90 of this Bundle.
The restraint order breaches i’s human rights under various articles as detailed at para 99 of this Bundle.
UNREASONABLE
The FCA did not ask IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP to justify how MF-PMA operates, what it does nor has the FCA asked IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP to justify that the affiliated administrative companies do not provide Claims Management, Debt Counselling, nor do they make referrals to others for Claims Management or Debt Counselling or act as the customers agent, or provide any advice.
The FCA made their application for the order on an Ex Parte basis and justified this on the false basis that there was a risk of asset dissipation, there was and is no risk of asset dissipation. The FCA had already caused the suspension of most of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP personal accounts including the gold and silver reserve merely by contacting the account providers and informing them that they were investigating me.
The FCA have taken no account of the fact that IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP has not taken remuneration from the MF-PMA affiliated administrative companies, that IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP has taken directors loans and hold the loans in a reserve in Crypto Currency and Gold and Silver to finance gaps in cash flow by the repayment of directors’ loans.
The FCA investigation could go on for years and if so unlawfully constrains IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP in contravention of i’s rights under Magna Carta 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689.
NO OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
It appears that the FCA made their application on an Ex Parte basis as they know that there is no evidence to support their speculations that IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP companies provide Claims Management, Debt Counselling, nor do they make referrals to others for Claims Management or Debt Counselling or act as the customers agent, or provide any advice.
PRIVATE MEMBERS ASSOCIATION
MF-PMA is a Private Membership Association made up of conscious men and women on the land, collectively asserting and standing upon their secured perfect rights to assemble and associate; the members have reserved authority; and claim absolute authority and control over their body, mind and spirit and private rights.
MF-PMA functions by the members acting as people, in their real private character and capacity.
MF-PMA members agree to comply with the MF-PMA constitution.
No State can make a law that impairs the obligation of the MF-PMA constitution, and therefore is without jurisdiction.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1948
Article 20
“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association”
LACK OF JURISDICTION
The FSMA 2000 and POCA 2002 and the Courts Act 2003 have no jurisdiction over I or IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP as none have received Royal Assent due to their being no Monarch since 1st Jan 1973, authorities:
Following the abdication from the throne by HRH Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) due to the transference of her powers to the ECC, a foreign state, the transfer of powers by QEII was an act of sedition and in effect treason. QEII became the head of State (the State is a corporation). As there has been no “Regall” Parliament since 1st Jan 1973, no Acts and Statutes have jurisdiction over me.
LAWFUL EXCUSE
I have many constitutional rights at my disposal that stem from the Magna Carta 1215; the Magna Carta is a treaty, not a statute and is used as the basis of Constitutional Law around
the world today. The Magna Carta cannot be repealed, forgotten or ignored. Parliament did not create it and thus can only be changed with the people’s vote. The people have not been asked or voted on its repeal or alteration.
Article 61 of the Magna Carta safeguards against an unjust Government that refuses to recognise Common Laws that protect the people and me. “All the main principles of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are still in force today. Magna Carta has a primary place in a wider national historical narrative which established the rights of Parliament and set out universal civil liberties, starting with the Magna Carta in 1215 and including the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights 1948. The Magna Carta allowed for the creation of a Parliament. Parliament was established to represent the will of the people. The signing of the Magna Carta established English citizen’s Rights”
In summary in 1769 Sir William Blacktone a judge affirmed the constitutional settlement of the Glorious Revolution (The Declarations of Rights 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689) to be the undeniable duty of the Monarchy, Government and Parliament as a constitutional obligation (to this day) to comply with their oaths of allegiance and office in obedience to our constitutional law. The Glorious Revolution removed supremacy for the Monarch, to Parliament or the Prime Minister.
The invocation of Magna Carta’s Article 61 was triggered when a committee of barons (landowners) petitioned the Queen on March 23, 2001, to withhold Royal Assent to the Nice Treaty, and she failed to reply in substance.
All statutes and regulations were made null from that date until the petition was addressed and resolved. Only Magna Carta 1215 is valid law currently.
This treaty made the Queen a Citizen of the European Union and subject to its laws as Her Coronation Oath compels the Queen to govern according to the laws and customs of her people.
It is High Treason for the Queen to subordinate her authority (our collective sovereignty) to a foreign governing body as described in the Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Settlement 1700 and the Coronation Oath of 1688. The Coronation Oath bound the Queen to that law; her failure to honour her Coronation Oath gave the barons lawful standing to invoke Article 61; Article 61 compels us all to stand with the barons in peaceful, practical dissent until the Monarch rights the violation of the common law and returns to serving the interests of the
Realm over those of hostile foreign entities. I stand with the Barons in in peaceful, practical dissent and lawful rebellion.
On July 10th 2023, i issued a Notice of Understanding, Intent and Claim of Right via a notarised Affidavit to the King, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, informing them of my understanding of the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 and 1707 and that I am a conscious man on the land, a Secured Party with rights under common law not a Citizen with privileges.
The notice informs them that i am standing with lawful excuse to “distress” the Crown and cannot by Royal Proclamation aid and abet it in any way whatsoever, including The Financial Conduct Authority, who are making, and may in future make demands on me to comply with unlawful legislation. Within my notice, I rebut the 12 presumptions of the Bar Guild, that of: Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Agent and Agency, Incompetence, and Guilt. Further, I informed them that there has been no Monarch since 1973 and, therefore, no “Regall” Parliament and the Acts and Statutes that appeared to have received Royal Assent since 1973 and, due to Article 61 of the Magna Carta that no Acts and Statutes since 1973 have jurisdiction over me. I provided an opportunity to rebut my notice within ten days, and should it not be rebutted its contents accepted via tacit acquiescence, and a valid contract formed. No rebuttals were received.
The postal rules state that an offer occurs when the other party receives it. Furthermore, acceptance occurs when it is posted and unless rebutted a contract is formed.
i claimed i right to lawful excuse under common law via my Notice of Understanding Intent and Claim of Right.
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 (ECC)
In 1972, HRH Queen Elizabeth II, gave Accent to the EEC, Treaty of Rome, Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty and by doing so breached her 1953 Coronation Oath to me and the people.
The signing of the ECC was an act of treason and sedition.
Section 2(1) provides:
“All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly; and the expression
“enforceable EU right” and similar expressions shall be read as referring to one to which this sub-section applies”
In signing the ECC, QEII breached the Coronation Oath 1688 a superior statute and via treason and sedition abdicated the Throne and was no longer the Monarch becoming the Head of State.
The state is a corporation because it is, in effect and in fact, a legal person or corporation.
CORONATION OATH 1688
QEII breached the Coronation Oath as she did not maintain the “Statutes Laws and Customs of the said Realme”
Oath heretofore framed in doubtful Words. Whereas by the Law and Ancient Usage of this
Realme the Kings and Queens thereof have taken a Solemne Oath upon the Evangelists at Their respective Coronations to maintaine the Statutes Laws and Customs of the said Realme and all the People and Inhabitants thereof in their Spirituall and Civill Rights and Properties But forasmuch as the Oath itselfe on such Occasion Administred hath heretofore beene framed in doubtfull Words and Expressions with relation to ancient Laws and Constitutions at this time unknowne To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme and to Them respectively Adminstred at the times of Their and every of Their Coronation.
ACT OF SETTLEMENT 1700
Recital of Stat. 1 W. & M. Sess. 2. c. 2. §2. and that the late Queen and Duke of Gloucester are dead; and that His Majesty had recommended from the Throne a further Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line. The Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First, to inherit after the King and the Princess Anne, in Default of Issue of the said Princess and His Majesty, respectively and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants.
b. “Whereasin the First Year of the Reign of Your Majesty and of our late most gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Mary (of blessed Memory) An Act of Parliament was made intituled [An Act for declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and for setling the Succession of the Crown] wherein it was (amongst other things) enacted established and declared That the Crown and Regall Government of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging should be and continue to Your Majestie and the said late Queen during the joynt Lives of Your Majesty and the said Queen and to the Survivor And that after the Decease of Your Majesty and of the said Queen the said Crown and Regall Government should be and remain to the Heirs of the Body of the said late
Queen”
a. From January 1973 there has not been a “Regall” (meaning Monarch) Government as required in the Act of Settlement 1700.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1689
An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.
“And I do declare That noe forreigne Prince Person Prelate , State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction Power “Superiority preeminence or Authorite Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this
realme Soe helpe me God “
From January 1973 QEII breached the Bill of Rights 1689 by handing over powers to the European Economic Community.
HRH Queen Elizabeth II became a DeFacto Queen as the head of the corporate State.
TREASON ACT 1795
F3 “and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, or by any overt act or deed, being legally convicted thereof upon the oaths of two lawful and credible
witnesses upon trial, or otherwise convicted or attainted by due course of law, then every such person and persons so as aforesaid offending shall be deemed, declared and
adjudged to be a traitor and traitors, nd shall suffer pains of death, . . “.
From January 1973 the Government and Parliament breached the Treason Act 1795 by ignoring the Statute at F3 of the Act by its “overt act and deed” committing treason and became a Defacto Parliament not Dejure Parliment.
This Act still has standing as the attempt to repeal in 1998 is void as there was no “Regall” Dejure Parliament to repeal it.
From January 1973 no Statutes have been given Royal Assent as there is no Monarch to give Royal Assent.
From January 1973 no statutes enacted by Parliament since 1973 have any effect on I or IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.
On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said:
“There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.
“ There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:
“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void.”
d. “We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were “ordinary” statutes and “constitutional statutes.” The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . .”
As there is no “Regall” Parliament since 1973, the FSMA 2000 and POCA 2002 FCA has no jurisdiction over i or IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP to impose a restriction order over IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP personal banks accounts or restrict IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP personal spending.
BREACH OF i’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1689
The order violates i’s constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights 1689 as it imposes on I a forfeiture before any conviction.
An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.
“That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”;
“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”
a. Even if the FCA did have jurisdiction over I or IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP the order breaches I’s rights under Habeas Corpus 1679, Magna Carta 1215, the Bill of Rights 1689 and I’s UN human rights 1948.
MAGNA CARTA 1215
“FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever”
“NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or
Right”
HABEAS CORPUS 1679
“A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the offence, and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in accordance with its gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving his stock-
intrade; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his means of livelihood–if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of good men of the neighbourhood”
the duty of the court is clear, the liberty of the subject is in question whether the order of the internment complained of was or was not lawfully made. The Act is a very drastic one indeed on an individual. Parliament has seen fit to curtail the liberty of an individual in order to protect that of the state: Parliament has seen fit to give to an individual the
authority to terminate another individual’s liberty is of a certain opinion. The detained person is at the mercy of that individual as to when he will be allowed to regain his liberty … it is the main function of the courts in our Kingdom to protect the rights of an individual. It is equally the function of Parliament. If those rights are infringed or curtailed, however slightly, and the situation is brought to the notice of the courts, courts will jealously guard against such an erosion of the individual rights. Any person who
infringes or takes away the rights of an individual must show a legal right to do so. The rights of an individual being infringed or taken away, even if a legal right is shown, the
courts will scrutinize such legal right very closely indeed. If it is an Act of Parliament, the court will give it the usual strict interpretation in order to see whether the provisions of
the said Act have been strictly observed. If the courts come to the conclusion that the
provisions of such an Act are not being strictly observed then the detention of the detainee would be illegal and the court will not hesitate to say so.76
Requiring a high degree of probability in habeas corpus proceedings is consistent with the approach adopted in Victoria to determining whether a limitation is demonstrably justified under s 7(2) of the Charter.111 Referring to the judgment of Denning LJ in Baxter v Baxter,112 in Application under Major Crimes (Investigative Powers) Act
2004, Warren CJ said [that] the standard of proof required was high.113 The Chief Justice went on to apply the principle expounded by Dickson CJ in R v Oakes114 that the
evidence should be ‘cogent and persuasive and make clear to the Court the consequences of imposing or not imposing the limit’.
It is now and never has been a static narrow formalistic remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose – the protection of individuals against erosion of their right to be free from wrongful restraints upon their liberty.13
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1948
Even if the FCA did have jurisdiction over I or IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP the order breaches I’s human rights.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. q.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. w. Article 9
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. z.
Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
aa. Article 18
i. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice.
bb. Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and
medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event
of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
| 131. | VOID ORDER | |
| 132. | The order No 34 of 2023 is an error in law as detailed within this Bundle. | |
| 133. | It appears that the FCA have investigated IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP activities and those of | |
| MF-PMA since 2019 under s168 FSMA 2000. | ||
| 134. | IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP did not receive any notice of the FCA’s investigation as it | |
| appears that the FCA’s view is that: (a) the provision of the notice would be likely to | ||
| frustrate the investigation; or (b) you have committed certain offences, such as insider | ||
| dealing under Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. | ||
| 135. | There is no risk of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP frustrating the FCA’s investigation. | |
| 136. | The FCA have not charged IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP with any offence, the FCA | |
| application for the order is based on nothing more than their suspicions and beliefs and | ||
| appears to be part of a vendetta against to entrap IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP via the | ||
| Southwark Crown Court order No 34 because it is impossible for IAIN CLIFFORD | ||
| STAMP to comply with the order and non compliance to it provides the FCA with an | ||
| opportunity to incarcerate IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP for contempt of court. | ||
| 137. | IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP has always fully cooperated with the FCA and am prepared to | |
| cooperate with them in their investigations. | ||
| 138. | There is no need of a restriction order against IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP personal bank | |
| accounts and spending. | ||
| 139. | VOID ORDER REFERENCES | |
|
cc. |
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, famously said the following: | |
|
dd. |
“A void order is incurably void, and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. | |
|
ee. |
Even a decision of the higher courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing.” (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]” | |
| 140. | Case Law History: | |
| 141. | THE VOID ORDER | |
|
ff. |
by Shirley Lewald Solicitor Advocate Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), MSc | |
| (Psych), PGDip (SocSc), PGCPSE, LLB (Hons). |
gg. The interesting and important nature of a ‘void’ order of a Court is not fully understood and appreciated in England and this article is written to assist the understanding of a
‘void’ order and to assist legal professionals in any concerns they may have in submitting to a Court that its order is void, if indeed it is void.
hh. In Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764 at 769 Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that: “A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all”. A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public
Prosecutions [1921] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court. In Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 395 Lindley,
L.J. said of void and irregular proceedings that it may be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void; in
general, one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls. A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] 1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School [1978] 3 WLR 736). A ‘fundamental defect’
includes a failure to serve process where service of process is required (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen Craig v Kanssen [1943] 1 KB 256); or where service of proceedings
never came to the notice of the defendant at all (e.g. he was abroad and was unaware of the service of proceedings); or where there is a fundamental defect in the issuing of
proceedings so that in effect the proceedings have never started; or where proceedings appear to be duly issued but fail to comply with a statutory requirement (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard [1963]). Failure to comply with a statutory requirement includes rules made pursuant to a statute (Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494). A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978]). In Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667] 85 E.R.
81, pp.87:88 it was held that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so; and nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is so expressly stated. ii. It is important to note therefore that in the case of orders of Courts with unlimited jurisdiction, an order can never be void unless the ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ is ‘limited’ in situations where it is expressly shown to be so. In the case of orders of the Courts of unlimited jurisdiction where
the jurisdiction is not expressly shown to be limited, the orders are either irregular or regular. If irregular, it can be set aside by the Court that made it upon application to that Court and a person affected by the irregular order has a right –ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside. If it is regular, it can only be set aside by an appellate Court upon appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies (Lord Diplock in Isaacs v Robertson (1984) 43 W.I.R. PC at 128-130).
However, where the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction is shown to be limited (for example: a restriction on the Court’s power by an Act of Parliament or Civil or Criminal Procedure Rule) (Peacock v Bell and Kendal [1667]; Halsbury’s Laws of England) then the doctrine of nullity will apply. Similarly, if the higher Court’s order is founded on a lower Court’s
void act or invalid claim then the higher Court’s decision will also be void (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] 3 All ER). The main differences between a
‘void’ and ‘voidable’ order or claim is that:
(i) a ‘void’ order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and therefore does not need to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be
necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] and Firman v Ellis [1978]) whereas a ‘voidable’ order or claim has legal effect unless and until it is set aside. Therefore, while a void order or claim does not have to be obeyed and can be ignored and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461), a voidable order or claim has to be obeyed and cannot be ignored unless and until it is set aside; and:
(ii) a ‘void’ order can be set aside by the Court which made the order because the Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]) whereas a ‘voidable’ order can only be set aside by appeal to an appellate Court. A person affected by both a void or voidable order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v
Kanssen [1943]).
The procedure for setting aside a void order is by application to the Court which made the void order, although it can also be set aside by appeal although an appeal is not necessary (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943]) or it can quashed or declared invalid by Judicial Review (where available) and where damages may also be claimed.
Although an appeal is not necessary to set aside a void order, if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the order is void and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside
(Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen oo. A void order is incurably void, and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord
Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
pp. A void order is void even if it results in a failure of natural justice or injustice to an
innocent third party (Lord Denning in Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601). qq. It is
never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v.
Winder [1985] A.C. 461; Smurthwaite v Hannay [1894] A.C. 494; Upjohn LJ in Re
Pritchard (deceased) [1963]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).
rr. In R v. Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL8 the House of Lords confirmed that there is no valid trial if the bill/Indictment has not been signed by an appropriate officer of the Court
because Parliament intended that the Indictment be signed by a proper officer of the Court. ss.
In Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is
void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) – has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do because
such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it.
It is important to note that if a claim is invalid the plaintiff can start all over again unless he is prevented from doing so due to limitation as in the case of Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] or estoppel – for example; where the Claimant applied to the Court for permission to correct/amend the claim and permission was refused; or the plaintiff or his solicitor
had been negligent in ignoring a material fact when filing the invalid claim so that the plaintiff is estopped by the principle that he should not be allowed a ‘second bite at the
cherry’; and in the case of a criminal trial if there has been a fundamental technical defect the Court can order a new trial (venire de novo – may you cause to come anew).
Chronology of some case laws relating to void orders:
vv. 1888:
ww. InAnlabyv.Praetorius(1888)FryL.J.statedontheissueofvoidproceedingsthat:
(I) a plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all.
xx. 1889:
yy. In Fry v. Moore (1889) Lindley, L.J. said that:
zz. (I) it might be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If an order is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null then it renders all that is done afterwards void. In general one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls.
aaa. 1921: bbb. Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921]:
ccc. (I) if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of
the Court. ddd. 1943: eee. In Craig v Kanssen [1943] Lord Greene confirmed that:
fff. (I) an order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside;
ggg. (ii) so far as procedure is concernedthe Court inits‘inherent jurisdiction’can set aside its own order and an appeal from the order is not necessary; and
hhh. (iii) if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the point is thattheorderisinvalidand the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside.
1953: jjj. In Wiseman v Wiseman [1953] 1 All ER 601 – Lord Denning confirmed that: kkk. (I) The issue of natural justice does not arise in a void order because it is void
whether it causes a failure of natural justice or not;
lll. (ii) a claimant or defendant should not be allowed to abuse the process of Court by failing to comply with a statutory procedure and yet keep the benefit of it and for that reason also a void act is void even if it affects the rights of an innocent third party. mmm. 1961:
nnn. InMacFoyvUnitedAfricaCoLtd.[1961]LordDenningconfirmedthat:(I)a void order is automatically void without more ado;
ooo. (ii)avoidorder doesnothavetobesetasidebyaCourt torenderitvoid
although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have the Court set the void order aside;
ppp. (iii) a void order is incurably void, and all proceedings based on the void order/invalid claim are also void. qqq. 1963:rrr.InRePritchard(deceased)[1963] Upjohn LJ confirmed that:
sss. (I) a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity; ttt.
(ii) a nullity cannot be waived; uuu. (iii) it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and
vvv. (iv)apersonaffectedbyavoidorderhastheright –exdebitojustitiae –tohave it set aside. www. 1978:
xxx. InFirmanvEllis[1978]LordDenningconfirmedthat:(I)avoidactisvoidab initio yyy. 1979:
zzz.Lord Denning, in his book ‘The Discipline of Law’ – Butterworths 1979 – page 77, states:
aaaa. (I)althoughavoidorderhasnolegaleffectfromtheoutsetitmaysometimesbe necessary to have it set aside because as Lord Radcliffe once said: “It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead”. bbbb. 1985: cccc. Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [1985] A.C. 461: dddd. (I) a person may ignore a void claim and relyon it asadefencewhennecessary.eeee. 2003:
ffff. InBellingervBellinger[2003]theHouseofLordsconfirmedthat:(I)avoidactis void from the outset; and
gggg. (ii) no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdictionto givelegaleffecttoavoidactnomatterhowunreasonablethatmay seembecausedoingsowouldmeanreformingthelawswhichnoCourthaspower to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform it.
hhhh. Conclusionbasedonthecaselawsreferredto above:
(I) an application to have a void order set aside can be made to the Court which made the void order;
jjjj. (ii)thesettingasidemustbedoneundertheCourt’sinherentpowertosetasideits own void order;
kkkk. (iii)theCourtdoesnothavediscretiontorefusetheapplicationbecausetheperson affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;
llll. (iv) an appeal is not necessary because the order is already void; mmmm.
(v) if permission to appeal is sought and if sought out of time, permission should be given because as the order is void time does not run; it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside;
nnnn. (vi)avoidordercanbequashedordeclaredunlawfulbyJudicialReviewwhere available and where damages may also be claimed;
oooo. (vii)thewholeproceedingsisvoidifitwasbasedonavoidact;pppp.(viii)a void order does not have tobe obeyed because it has nolegal effectfromthe beginning;
qqqq. (ix)asitisnevertoolatetoraisetheissueofnullityapersoncanignorethevoid order and rely on nullity as a defence when necessary;
rrrr.(x) a void order is void even if the nullity is unjust or injustice occurs to an innocent third party;
ssss. (xi) an order of a Court of unlimited jurisdiction is only void if it can be expresslybeshownthattheunlimitedjurisdictionislimitedinthatsituation,ortheorder is founded on an invalid claim or void act;
tttt. (xii) no Court (not even the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give effect to a void act and the duty of the Court is only to interpret and apply the law not to reform or create it as such power rests only with Parliament
:iain-clifford: stamp
As sui juris, Secured Party and creditor reserve all my rights without prejudice. 17.10.2023
Documents provided separately.
Order No 34 Southwark Crown Court.
Lawful dissent via Magna Carta Article 61 and the theft of the British constitution.
2001 Barons Petition correspondence.
Notice of Understanding Intent and Claim of Right.
Hold Harmless agreement.
Common Law Copyright.
UCC1 SPC confirmation.
The creation of IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP and the fraud at birth registration.
Administrative Court Office Room C315
Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Between
| :iain-clifford: stamp
V |
| SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT |
|
& FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHOR ITY |
i Iain Clifford: STAMP date of birth 31st December 1965 of Courtyard House, Park Lane, Upper Swanmore, Southampton, SO32 2QQ, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland say as follows;
i order the decision of Southwark Crown Court NO 34 2023 to be quashed under writ of certiorari, via Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules, by reason of an error of law “on the face of the record” the decision was made ultra vires due to a lack of jurisdiction, the decision is unlawful, irrational, unreasonable and harms me via its procedural impropriety.
i order an Interlocutory Injunction that compels the FCA to prove their locus standi and their case against me and a Mandatory Injunction that compels the FCA to cease and desist their investigation into me and MATRIXFREEDOM.
Name: :iain-clifford: stamp iain-clifford: stamp
Dated 18/10/2023