CRITIQUE OF THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT – 30th JULY 2025

The Financial Conduct Authority v. Iain Clifford Stamp Order 34/2023 Southwark Crown Court

For submission to the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court

1. Summary

  1. This critique rebuts the sentencing judgment dated 30th July 2025 in the matter of The Financial Conduct Authority v Iain Clifford Stamp under Order 34/2023. I, Iain Clifford, a living man, General Executor of the Estate [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP], and spiritual envoy for the Republic of Old Souls, assert that the judgment is void ab initio, issued without lawful jurisdiction, and constitutes ongoing persecution for my peaceful ecclesiastical mission.

2. Continued Denial of Jurisdiction and Fraudulent Service

  1. Despite repeated and unrebutted affidavits denying jurisdiction, rescinding all service addresses, and asserting my lawful standing outside corporate joinder, the Court has continued to unlawfully presume jurisdiction. No lawful contract, wet-ink signature, or consent has ever been provided to bind the living man into Crown jurisdiction. The sentence was served in breach of my explicit denial of service and stands as an act of legal trespass.

3. Persistent Use of a Fictitious Prosecutor

  1. The Court continues to act on proceedings instituted by “Alistair Mackenzie,” whose identity and prosecutorial status remain unverified. No appointment under POCA 2002 or FSMA 2000 has ever been produced. Despite forensic analysis and lawful notices served on the FCA and the Court, the judge failed to acknowledge or rebut this fraud. The deliberate refusal to validate the prosecutor confirms collusion and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice—grounds for international criminal prosecution.

4. Dismissal of Valid Affidavits and Rebuttals

  1. Multiple unrebutted affidavits were entered into the record, including:
  1. Denial of Jurisdiction
  2. Motion to Strike Out
  3. Recusal of Judge Baumgartner
  4. Rebuttal of Judgment (16 July 2025)
  5. Appointment of Attorney-in-Fact
  6. Cease and Desist Notices
  7. Notice Regarding Rescission of Address
  1. Judge Baumgartner dismissed all of these without lawful rebuttal and labelled them “nonsensical,” in clear breach of Article 6 of the ECHR, which guarantees a fair hearing and the right to present evidence.

5. Unlawful Refusal to Allow Representation

  1. My appointed attorney-in-fact, David Ayerst, was lawfully designated to attend the hearing, speak on my behalf, and request a court of record. His removal from court was an unlawful obstruction of my right to representation and is further evidence of procedural misconduct.

6. False Allegation of Asset Dissipation

  1. The Court alleged $320,000 in asset dissipation without producing a single piece of forensic evidence, transaction record, or audit trail. All accounts had been frozen since June 2023 following Order 34. The accusation is factually and legally impossible, and its inclusion in sentencing evidences malicious fabrication, violating Article 6 ECHR and Rome Statute Article 7(1)(h) on persecution.

7. Violation of Peaceful Mission and Ecclesiastical Status

  1. The sentence attacks my 508(c)(1)(A) ecclesiastical office, my peaceful diplomatic mission, and the lawful standing of the Republic of Old Souls. These acts violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 9 ECHR (freedom of conscience, religion, and belief), and customary international law. The Court’s disregard constitutes religious persecution and suppression of peaceful association.

8. Evidence of Judicial Bias and Misconduct

  1. The judgment’s tone and language demonstrate bias, prejudice, and a willful refusal to engage with the record before the court. The continued referencing of “nonsensical documents” while failing to rebut legal arguments shows a predetermined outcome and lack of judicial impartiality, contrary to Article 6(1) ECHR.

9. Basis for International Criminal Prosecution

  1. The continued persecution, knowing use of a fictitious prosecutor, disregard of lawful standing, suppression of ministerial activity, and judicial conspiracy are now under ICC review via Article 15 of the Rome Statute. The conduct qualifies under:
  1. Article 7(1)(h): Persecution
  2. Article 7(1)(e): Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty
  3. Article 7(1)(k): Other inhumane acts
  1. This judgment shall be included as fresh evidence of ongoing systemic abuse by State actors.

10. Rebuttal of Judicial Dismissal of Affidavits and Notices

  1. The sentencing judgment’s repeated dismissal of my meticulously drafted affidavits and lawful notices as “nonsensical” is both inaccurate and dishonourable. These documents, grounded in statutory law and lawful notice procedure, were served on all parties in good faith. The judge’s refusal to substantively engage with or rebut their content constitutes a breach of Article 6 of the ECHR and further undermines judicial impartiality. This judicial misconduct is hereby incorporated into the formal rejection of the sentence and will be submitted as part of the evidentiary record to both the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court.

Declaration and Forwarding

I declare this critique, together with the Notice of Rejection and Non-Consent to Sentence, be formally submitted as an addendum to:

  • My application to the European Court of Human Rights
  • My Communication under Article 15 to the International Criminal Court

I stand in honour, without dishonour, and under lawful truth.

Signed,
Iain Clifford
President, Republic of Old Souls
General Executor of the Estate: IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP
Date: 31st July 2025
Location: North Cyprus

Please fill out the form fields below to request an interview with Iain Clifford.