AFFIDAVIT FOUR
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
Order 34 2023
FCA Entrapment by Design – FCA’s Track Record of Abuse of its Powers – Over 400 Witness Statements Confirm no Regulated Activities Performed – Order 34 2023 Weaponised by Design
I, Iain Clifford, a living man, affirm the following under penalty of perjury:
1. Summary
- I submit this affidavit as a direct response to the continued abuse of regulatory and judicial processes by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), orchestrated through what I assert is a deliberately unworkable and unlawfully imposed instrument—Order 34/2023. This order was not founded on evidence but on speculation, and it has since become a tool of suppression and entrapment by design.
- For over sixteen years, I have been the target of an unrelenting campaign by the FCA—characterised by coercion, procedural dishonour, and the destruction of lawful ventures without due process. In this affidavit, I expose the systemic collusion between regulatory and judicial actors, outline key legal precedents confirming my position, and provide proof from over 400 witnesses that no regulated financial services have ever been offered by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP] or any affiliated body.
- This is not merely a defence of my position—it is a record of truth. It is my lawful response to systemic dishonour. And it is my notice to all who continue to act under colour of law, without jurisdiction or moral authority.
- Let the record show: Order 34/2023 was weaponised by design. ?This affidavit is submitted in further challenge to Order 34/2023, issued at the behest of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). It supplements three prior affidavits and provides further evidence of regulatory misconduct, judicial collusion, and a prolonged campaign of targeted harassment against the body corporate [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP], myself as the living man, and members of MATRIXFREEDOM.
2. FCA Entrapment by Design
- In 2023, the FCA speculated—without evidence—that the body corporate may be offering regulated services such as claims management, debt counselling, or financial promotions. This speculation was used to justify obtaining a constraint order that the FCA designed to be impossible to live within—thus ensuring breaches they could later weaponize. This is a textbook case of entrapment by design.
3. Destruction of Lawful Ventures through Speculation
- The FCA has a track record of sabotaging lawful ventures through speculative interference. A key example occurred in 2017 when the FCA issued a Supervisory Notice against Stargate Capital Management (SCM), a fund manager working in joint venture with my firm UK Innovative Traded Instruments (UKITI). The FCA named me over 70 times in their notice—without substantiated evidence—and later offered SCM a deal: if its CEO, Paresh Shah, agreed never to work with me again, the FCA would end their investigation into Stargate. This coercive tactic dismantled a lawful commercial arrangement between UKITI and SCM, and the FCA’s strategy was explicitly designed to achieve that destruction.
4. Legal Precedent – Innovative Traded Instruments v FCA (2018)
- In a landmark 2018 case before the Upper Tribunal, it was ruled that UKITI had no statutory right to challenge the FCA’s Supervisory Notice directly under FSMA 2000, despite the significant reputational and economic harm caused. Nonetheless, the Tribunal permitted representations to be made, acknowledging the severity of the FCA’s conduct. This established a clear precedent that the FCA acted without reasonable justification, and that its enforcement powers can be misused to isolate, punish, and exclude without formal charges or legal findings.
5. Matrix of Witness Testimony – 400 Statements Filed
- As of this submission, over 400 sworn witness statements from MATRIXFREEDOM Private Members Association (PMA) members have been submitted to Judge Anthony Baumgartner and the Attorney General. These statements confirm beyond doubt:
- No FCA-regulated services have ever been offered by [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP];
- Nor by any company under my direction or influence;
- Nor by any MATRIXFREEDOM member or affiliated administrative facilitator.
- These are private, lawful activities conducted under the protection of a PMA constitutional framework. This is a form of lawful association recognised internationally and beyond the reach of statutory jurisdiction when no harm, breach of peace, or injured party exists.
6. Judicial Review Denied Under Dubious Circumstances
- Following Order 34/2023, I submitted a timely application for judicial review. The application was dismissed by Justice Derek Sweeting, a judge formally reprimanded by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) in 2023 for delaying judgment for over 14 months. Given his track record, I assert that Justice Sweeting was selected by the FCA to carry out this dismissal. The refusal to hear the review application—despite full procedural compliance—further reinforces the allegation of collusion and judicial bias, raising profound concerns about due process.
7. Relief Sought
I assert that:
- Order 34/2023 was obtained by deception and abuse of process;
- The FCA has engaged in systemic entrapment by design, weaponizing unproven speculation to suppress lawful commercial activity and private expression;
- There is a clear pattern of targeting both my person and my enterprises stretching back to 2010.
- Accordingly, I respectfully request that:
- The constraint order be struck out in its entirety,
-
- All related proceedings be dismissed with prejudice,
- The FCA and any complicit agents, including Justice Sweeting, be held accountable for judicial dishonour, regulatory misconduct, and violation of common law and international human rights.
- I reserve all unalienable rights under natural law, common law, constitutional law, and international law, and reaffirm that I stand only as the living man, not as the corporate fiction assigned to me without my consent.
- Truth is not bound by procedure. Fraud voids all it touches. And where jurisdiction is founded on lies, remedy must come from truth.
- Public Record 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.
- Challenge to Jurisdiction 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 – Bias and FCA Abuse of Power 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 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.
JURAT
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
23rd Day June Twenty Twenty-Five.
Witnesses
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: 9th June 2025
Witness 2
Proper Name: David Ayerst
Signature: David Ayerst
Date: 9th June 2025
Witness 3
Proper Name: Angela John
Signature: Angela John
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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
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
Strande
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.
