NOTICE NON-CONSENT JUDGE ANTHONY BAUMGARTNER JUDGEMENT

Served Upon: JCIO, Serious Fraud Office, Public Inquiry Committee, Financial Conduct Authority, and all Parties Cited in Certificate of Service

Served by: Iain Clifford, occupant of the office of the General Executor of the Estate known as [IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP]

Re: Unlawful Enforcement under Order 34/2023
Served by: Iain Clifford, Living Man
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

1. Introduction

1. This report is my formal rebuttal and lawful analysis of the judgment handed down by Judge Anthony Baumgartner on 16 July 2025 in the matter of Order 34/2023. I present this as a living man, not as the corporate fiction “IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP.” This document incorporates and expands upon my Lawful Notice to Cease and Desist (16 July 2025), my Notice of Estoppel and Escalation (10 July 2025), and my Declaration of Rescission and Bench Warrants.

2. Summary of Key Breaches

1. The judgment is fundamentally defective and demonstrates:

1. A failure to address or rebut any of my jurisdictional or lawful notices;
2. A wilful disregard for my Affidavit of Recusal and sworn declarations;
3. The unlawful characterization of my lawful notices as “nonsensical”;
4. A refusal to acknowledge estoppel, rescission, or the absence of lawful service;
5. A collusive agenda to entrap and suppress me as a lawful challenger to systemic financial corruption.

3. Jurisdictional Challenge Ignored

1. I lawfully challenged the jurisdiction of the Crown Court on the following grounds:

1. No lawful prosecutor: “Alistair Mackenzie” is not listed in the FCA Enforcement Division, Law Society, or Bar Council. He is merely an appointed representative (since 23 December 2024) and has no prosecutorial authority under FSMA 2000 or POCA 2002.
2. No judicial oath: Judge Baumgartner has failed to produce his judicial oath under the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.
3. No Crown Agent: Southwark Crown Court has not identified a Crown Agent as required under the Crown Agents Act 1995.
4. No joinder to the living man: The court has never lawfully established jurisdiction over me, Iain Clifford, the living man. All proceedings have been directed at the legal fiction “IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP,” which is a trust estate and corporate entity.

2. These defects render the entire proceeding void ab initio, as per R v Crown Court at Manchester ex parte McCann [2002] UKHL 39.

4. Estoppel by Silence and Dishonour

1. My notices, including the Notice of Estoppel and Escalation, were served on:

1. The FCA
2. The SFO
3. The JCIO
4. The FCA Complaints Commissioner
5. Southwark Crown Court
6. The Attorney General

2. None of these parties have rebutted my affidavits or notices. Under Tinkler v HMRC [2021] UKSC 39 and Unilever Plc v IRC [1996] STC 681, this silence constitutes binding estoppel. As per Barton v Morris [2023] UKSC 3, silence in the face of lawful notice creates enforceable obligations in equity.

5. Service Defects and Constructive Fraud

1. I lawfully rescinded all presumed service at:

1. 4C Glebe Park Avenue
2. iain@mtrxf.org
3. iain@wealthfortress.co.uk

2. I cited:

1. CPR 6.23 and 6.37
2. FCA Handbook GEN 2.2.14R
3. Interpretation Act 1978
4. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

3. The judgment unlawfully proceeds as if service was valid, ignoring Tatishvili v Russia (2007), Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC (2003), and Golder v UK (1975). This constitutes constructive fraud and a breach of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR.

6. Bench Warrants and Entrapment

1. Any bench warrant issued in reliance on defective service is void ab initio. The court has failed to rebut:

1. My Notice of Final Estoppel
2. My Declaration of Status
3. My rescission of jurisdiction

2. This is a textbook case of entrapment by design, where the Crown orchestrates both the charge and the procedural denial of remedy. This justifies Rule 39 interim relief under Mamatkulov v Turkey and Paladi v Moldova.

7. Misidentification and Trust Law

1. I am not the corporate fiction “[IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP].” I am the living man and beneficiary of the estate. The Crown has failed to rebut:

1. My declaration of status
2. My rescission of joinder
3. My trust law notices under the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

2. All actions against the trust estate are trespass, constructive trust fraud, and ultra vires.

8. Institutional Silence and Collusion

1. Every oversight body has refused to investigate or respond:

1. JCIO
2. SFO
3. FCA Complaints Commissioner
4. Attorney General

2. This silence confirms institutional collusion, misfeasance in public office, and denial of remedy. It also satisfies the threshold of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35(1) of the ECHR.

9. Pattern of Defective Judgments and Judicial Misconduct

1. There is now a demonstrable pattern of defective judicial rulings that collectively undermine the integrity of the proceedings and support this complaint of judicial misconduct.

1. The original Order 34/2023 was issued by Judge Anthony Baumgartner without establishing whether the named prosecutor, “Alistair Mackenzie,” was a bona fide FCA prosecutor. No evidence of prosecutorial authority, delegation, or legal standing was ever produced. This omission renders the order void ab initio.
2. In the subsequent judicial review, Mr Justice Sweeting refused to grant a hearing despite being served with affidavits challenging the Crown Court’s jurisdiction over the living man and requesting a pro se hearing. The judgment upheld Order 34/2023 without addressing the jurisdictional objections or the absence of a lawful prosecutor.
3. On 16 July 2025, Judge Baumgartner issued a further judgment confirming contempt allegations, again without addressing the unrebutted affidavits, the rescission of service, or the lack of lawful joinder to the living man. The judgment also failed to acknowledge the estoppel notices and affidavits of status.

2. This sequence of three defective rulings demonstrates a systemic failure to uphold due process, investigate prosecutorial legitimacy, or respect the rights of a self-represented litigant. The cumulative effect of these rulings has denied me access to justice and supports the assertion of judicial misconduct and institutional bias. These facts are now central to my submission to the European Court of Human Rights and this complaint to the JCIO.

10. Legal Consequences

1. As of this judgment:

1. The Crown is proceeding ultra vires;
2. There is no lawful prosecutor;
3. I have exhausted all domestic remedies;
4. Any enforcement constitutes abduction, false imprisonment, and state-sponsored persecution.

11. Lawful Rejection of Judgment and Crown Liability

1. As the living man, I, Iain Clifford, do not consent to the judgment handed down by Judge Anthony Baumgartner on 16 July 2025. I reject it in its entirety—100%—on the grounds that it is procedurally and lawfully defective, and that it has no jurisdictional authority over me.

1. I invoke the Law of the Living Man, which affirms that:
2. A living man is not subject to the jurisdiction of a corporate court unless lawful joinder has been established and consent has been given knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily;
3. No such joinder has occurred in this matter;
4. All actions have been directed at the legal fiction “IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP,” which is a trust estate and not the living man;
5. I have lawfully rescinded all presumed service and jurisdiction, and no rebuttal has been issued.

2. This position is supported by:

1. The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, which affirms the right of the living man to reclaim his estate and reject any presumption of corporate status;
2. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, which affirms the right to natural justice and the invalidity of decisions made without lawful authority;
3. Miller v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, which confirms that the exercise of public power must be lawful and accountable;
4. Tinkler v HMRC [2021] UKSC 39, which affirms that silence in the face of lawful notice constitutes estoppel.

3. Furthermore, under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, all liabilities arising from the actions of Crown agents—including judges, prosecutors, and regulatory officers—are liabilities of the Crown. This includes any harm, loss, or injury caused by unlawful enforcement, defective judgments, or denial of remedy.
4. Therefore, I lawfully and unequivocally reject the judgment of 16 July 2025. It is null, void, and without lawful effect. I do not consent to its enforcement, and I reserve all rights, waive none.

12. Vicarious Liability of All Parties Served

1. All parties listed in the Certificate of Service—including but not limited to the Financial Conduct Authority, the Serious Fraud Office, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, the FCA Complaints Commissioner, and the Attorney General—are now vicariously liable for the consequences of the unlawful proceedings under Order 34/2023.
2. Each of these parties was lawfully served with affidavits, notices of estoppel, declarations of rescission, and lawful demands. None have issued a rebuttal, counter-affidavit, or lawful response within the stipulated timeframes.
3. Their collective silence constitutes tacit agreement, acquiescence, and dishonour under common law, equity, and binding legal precedent. This activates estoppel by silence and estoppel by acquiescence, as affirmed in Tinkler v HMRC [2021] UKSC 39 and Unilever Plc v IRC [1996] STC 681.
4. Accordingly, all named parties are now jointly and severally liable for the ongoing harm, procedural violations, and breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Articles 6, 8, 13, and Protocol 1, Article 1.
5. This vicarious liability will be formally presented as part of my submission to the European Court of Human Rights, and each party will be named as a complicit actor in the systemic denial of justice and remedy.

13. Next Steps: ECHR Submission

1. I will now:

1. Submit this judgment as evidence to the European Court of Human Rights;
2. Expand my submission to include:
3. All substantive Affidavit’s
4. All substantive Notices
5. Strike out and Stay Motions
6. Rescission and Estoppel Documents
7. APPG and independent findings on FCA misconduct (Stansfeld, Green QC)
8. Full dossier of Crown collusion

2. I am seeking:

1. Rule 39 interim relief for imminent harm
2. Recognition of violations under Articles 6, 8, 13, and Protocol 1, Article 1
3. A moratorium on any action relating to Order 34/2023 until an independent tribunal can assess the matter