—————————————————————————–
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
——————————————————————————-
IN THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHWARK
Served Upon: JCIO, Serious Fraud Office, Public Inquiry Committee, Financial Conduct Authority, and all Parties Cited in Certificate of Service
Filed by: Iain Clifford, occupant of the office of the General Executor of the Estate known as [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP]
A. This Motion is submitted to formally request the immediate strikeout of all proceedings under Order 34/2023 on the grounds of fatal jurisdictional defects, lack of prosecutorial standing, unrebutted affidavits, and a demonstrable pattern of regulatory abuse and judicial misconduct.
A. Lack of Prosecutorial Standing
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has failed to verify the identity, authority, or lawful delegation of “Alistair Mackenzie,” the purported prosecutor. No public record, oath of office, or delegation under POCA or FSMA exists. The use of a placeholder identity constitutes fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.
B. Unrebutted Affidavits and Notices
All affidavits and lawful notices served upon the FCA and relevant parties remain unrebutted. Under the legal maxim “Silence is agreement” and the precedent set in Adams v Lindsell (1818), unrebutted affidavits stand as truth in law.
C. Absence of Verified Crown Agent
Southwark Crown Court has failed to produce evidence of a Crown Agent’s presence or appointment, as required under the Crown Agent Act 1995. Without such verification, the court lacks lawful jurisdiction.
D. Judicial Oath Not Produced
Judge Anthony Baumgartner has not produced his judicial oath as required under the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. This omission invalidates his authority to preside over matters involving liberty and property.
E. Judicial Refusal to Recuse
Despite documented misconduct and a formal demand for recusal, Judge Baumgartner continues to preside. This constitutes a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness.
F. No Evidence of Regulated Financial Activity
Over 500 sworn witness statements confirm that neither [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] nor any MATRIXFREEDOM member has offered regulated financial services. The FCA has failed to produce any evidence to the contrary.
A. R v Rollins [2010] UKSC 39
The Supreme Court cautioned that FCA powers are limited and conditional, and must be properly invoked. This case underscores the necessity of lawful delegation and prosecutorial authority.
B. The LC&F Review by Dame Elizabeth Gloster
This independent review revealed institutional failures and unclear prosecutorial boundaries, supporting claims of FCA overreach and ambiguity in legal enforcement.
C. These cases reaffirm the principle that proper authority is a prerequisite, not a procedural formality and lend weight to the argument that the FCA’s actions in the current matter are ultra vires and void ab initio.
A. The FCA’s actions against Iain Clifford form part of a long-standing pattern of regulatory targeting and institutional retaliation, as documented in THE DISRUPTER 3. Key events include:
B. These events demonstrate a coordinated campaign to suppress innovation, discredit lawful remedies, and isolate Iain Clifford from the financial system. The FCA’s conduct constitutes abuse of process, regulatory overreach, and a breach of public duty.
A. This Motion is grounded in the principles of equity, natural justice, and procedural law.
B. The absence of lawful standing, jurisdiction, and verified authority renders the proceedings void ab initio.
C. Continuing enforcement under Order 34/2023 constitutes fiduciary trespass and abuse of process.
A. The Motion requires the Court:
A. This case is now under increasing public scrutiny. Thousands of MATRIXFREEDOM members are actively monitoring the proceedings, and a much wider audience comprising individuals and groups questioning the integrity of the judicial process is becoming aware of the facts.
B. The documentary series The Disrupter, along with supporting videos and webinars, is being widely disseminated to expose the institutional misconduct, regulatory overreach, and judicial failures surrounding this matter.
C. The public interest in this case continues to grow, and all actions taken by the FCA, the judiciary, and associated parties are being documented and preserved for historical and legal record.
D. This Motion to Strike Out is not only a legal imperative—it is a matter of public accountability.
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
3rd July 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.
Witness 1
Proper Name: Andrew Michael
Signature: Andrew Michael
Date: 3rd July 2025
Witness 2
Proper Name: David Ayerst
Signature: David Ayerst
Date: 3rd July 2025
Witness 3
Proper Name: Angela John
Signature: Angela John
Date: 3rd July 2025
I Iain Clifford, Certify the foregoing was provided by UK Special delivery mailed to:
As per Section 196(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Postal Services Act 2000.