This is a COMMERCIAL LIEN ADDENDUM NOTICE

Date of service 1ST May 2015 NOTICE TO AGENTs IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLEs NOTICE TO PRINCIPLEs IS NOTICE TO AGENTs

The principles or agents in this common law action claim are in fact; AGENTS OF THE CROWN/BAR – “JUDGES”

Their names are as follows;

Justice DAME VICTORIA MADELEINE SHARPE DBE 08/02/1956

HHJ SIR DAVID ROBERT FOSKETT 19/03/1949

RT Hon PHILIP MARK PELLING QC 27/06/1956

Justice CAROLINE JANE SWIFT 30/05/1955

Rt Hon PETER ARTHUR BRIAN JACKSON 09/12/1955

Senior Master DENZIL ANTON LUSH 18/7/1951

Served upon: District J. MICHAEL A HOVINGTON 9, KENTMERE CLOSE GATLEY CHEADLE CHESHIRE SK84RD THIS SWORN STATEMENT OF TRUTH BY THE MAN UNDER COMMON LAW mike: clarke NOT the LEGAL FICTION - MICHAEL CLARKE Will attach itself, after the given period of 21 days as an addendum to the original lien served previously which is enclosed within this document failing a full and complete REBUTTAL. After this period of expected expiry being the 21st of MAY 2015 a default notice will be issued to the same giving an additional 21 days whereby at this point the LIEN ADDENDUM becomes a perfected addition. In line with the 800 year anniversary of THE MAGNA CARTA 1215 And in commemoration thereof, this commercial lien in its full entirety will be published and enforced from that day forward upon the persons so named.

FOREWORD covering letter For the attention of District Judge Michael A Hovington Of the private address of 9, KENTMERE CLOSE GATLEY CHEADLE CHESHIRE SK8 4RD

Dear District Judge Michael A Hovington Ref CASE 2MA90015 & 2MA91155 It has come to my attention via an order by Caroline Swift that you will now be the gate keeper to get past, on my way to Justice because you are so appointed. That being so this LIEN ADDENDUM is being served upon you at your home address, hoping that it does not disturb Jennifer, Daniel or Margaret. We trust that you will, being an agent and principle named, in turn, serve it upon the other 6 named Judges and thus the recorded, signed for delivery of this, will represent service. I might add whilst writing, that my research upon you revealed a connection to the OFFICE of THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN, which you must take note that I consider this to be yet another conflict of interest in your appointment to Judge my access to Justice as this matter concerns the FRAUD THEFT & MAL ADMINISTRATION by the Public Guardian office! That being so I have in this LIEN detailed our plight and I suggest you digest its content before you proceed hopefully to rebut my claim against your criminal fraternity that, if you fail to, as I suspect might be the case, this LIEN ADDENDUM will be attached to you, in full commercial liability that I will be moving forward to enforce, against all 58 named parties. My mother and I have suffered enough at the hands of criminals within the court system and beyond and it is with an open mind we proceed with the 800 year old anniversary of the MAGNA CARTA 1215 on the 15th June 2015 in mind. Sincerely without ill will frivolity or vexation. FOREWORD END a) Justice Sharpe on the date 26/1/2012 did issue a temporary injunction for harassment upon the legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE. The man mike clarke made a statutory declaration and served to the court by hand, witnessed, which stated: EXHIBIT 1 http://opg.me/Madetoday30.04.2012_merged15pages.pdf b) Foskett on the date of May 2 2012 did issue a permanent injunction order upon the legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE, http://opg.me/finalcourtorder02052012.pdf the man mike clarke wrote to the Judge before these proceedings and required a court de Jure in which we attached Foskett’s reply. EXHIBIT 2 http://opg.me/foskitt.pdf c) Rt Hon Judge Pelling on Dec 17 2012 did issue a permanent injunction order on the legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE – of the http://opg.me/Letterfrompannone19122012.pdf EXHIBIT 3 d) Pelling Rt Hon Judge on the date of 14th January 2013 did proceed with a hearing where he placed an order upon the legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE of 3 months prison for contempt of court http://opg.me/orderforcommittal.pdf where PELLING within the transcript admits receipt and the reading of the following submissions… EXHIBIT 4

4 Notices to court served on PELLING 14/1/2013 No1 STATUTORY declaration http://opg.me/statdec02012013.pdf No2 skeleton case argument http://opg.me/Skeletontodissmiss.pdf No3 high court notice http://opg.me/highcourtnotice14012013.pdf No4 contract tendered on Pelling http://opg.me/contracttendered11012013sealed.pdf Representation by ROGER HAYES & GUY TAYLOR common law THE JUDGE RAN OUT OF COURT Nominated Court of Protection Judges http://www.opg.me/listofjudgesupdatedJun2013.pdf AFTER Pelling had the removal of my representation by security http://opg.me/orderforcommittal.pdf

e) In an application to strike out the Pelling VOID order of committal to prison Justice SWIFT http://opg.me/6thmarch2MA90015.pdf stated my application was TOTALLY without merit dated 06/03/2015 when it clearly had the following points raised that she failed to rebut in -- exhibit 5 http://opg.me/setaside2.COMPRESSED.pdf f) In a second application to VOID her order, again judged by her, SWIFT she says again I am TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT and further, upon the courts own initiative, issues a LIMITED CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER http://opg.me/march10th2015order.pdf upon the LEGAL FICTION MICHAEL CLARKE who cannot make any further applications in this case without first asking the permission of Judge HOVINGTON, the point raised in this application are as exhibit 6 that you must take note was made by the man and not the LEGAL FICTION MICHAEL CLARKE. http://opg.me/STRIKETHEMOUT09032015.pdf g) We hereby now raise the points for rebuttal by each and every judge. The failure to rebut with lawful reasons for that rebuttal of point by point will provide joinder in terms of acquiescence by silence and thus the truth remains in law by the points raised and not rebutted exhibit 8 POINT BY POINT CLAIM TO BE REBUTTED h) Failure to rebut will bring a financial penalty of £1 million pounds per Judge attachment to the current LIEN, THAT they have attempted to extinguish without due process of a common law court de jure of 12 peers bringing the value of the said LIEN to a total sum of £16 million that becomes jointly and severally liable by all 58 named parties EXHIBIT 9 COMMERCIAL LIEN i) Legal Fictions are in fact ALL CAPITALS birth certificate corporations used in commerce of administrative maritime law and used to gain joinder on a claim upon that vessel by way of consent by the man. j) CONSENT has been consistently denied in this case with the clear existence of BIAS justifying use of a court de jure and 12 peers. k) The seal attached below & at the start is the seal of the man, the real flesh and blood man with a soul that also has copyright and trade marked the LEGAL FICTION vessel name – MICHAEL RAYMOND CLARKE and any derivative of, being the man’s property of which the court has no right to use that name and must refrain from doing so. FAILURE to do so will incorporate a charge of £1 million per infringement of such copyrighted TM.

Witness name

signature Paul Moorby

Witness name Signature Ann Clarke

Exhibit 8 - POINT BY POINT CLAIM of TRUTH to BE REBUTTED

1. The jurisdiction of the UNITED KINGDOM is, if claimed a common law jurisdiction.

2. A court de facto is a tribunal administrative hearing that can be conducted by the gaining of joinder ie consent by all parties under legalese fiction NAMES.

3. A court de jure is a court of JURY peers of 12 and a true court of common law of the land.

4. Legal Fictions are in fact ALL CAPITALS birth certificate corporations used in commerce of administrative maritime law and used to gain joinder on a statute claim upon that vessel by way of consent from the man.

5. The Magna Carta 1215 still stands in law.

6. The Bill of Rights 1688/9 still is in force.

7. The county courts act 1984 is still in force where a criminal procedure that is related takes precedence over any civil procedure and so must be shelved for the outcome of another.

8. The Mental Capacity ACT section 5 applies to carers and that they are exempt from any civil or criminal liability in connection with the care of a patient of the court of protection.

9. The PARENS PATREA ie protection applied under the Mental Capacity ACT and Court of Protection plus Office of the Public Guardian has a duty to protect under its duty of care. The failure of such has already been established and under this claim.

10. The COURTS are in fact a corporation trading on DUNN & BRADSTREET and so is in point of fact are a BUSINESS!!

11. The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 is clear about the dead and those who do not claim their living soul will have their inherent rights removed as ie a slave or ward of court. LEGAL FICTION tied by the birth certificate.

12. High Treason is a judicial abuse of power by a false claim of jurisdiction and authority over a man without their joinder of consent to that hearing where additionally ECHR and the rights to representation of choosing has also been blocked and refused by NO right of audience a BIAS.

13. The use of trial by Judge, Judging in his own cause as an employee of the court of protection, when this court has and is conducting a facilitation of FRAUD is an abhorrent severe breach of trust in a misuse of power again HIGH TREASON & Tyranny of BIAS.

14. Appeal of PELLINGS committal is to have given the decision some merit, some credence for which it does not have… it certainly is TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT in your own words.

15. There has been a setup.. A conspiracy and a collusion designed by friends of PANNONE LLP in HIGH UP powerful places that are able to manipulate the statute system to their own cause and inflict such acts of JEWDICIAL TERRORISM upon vulnerable innocents.

16. The above adding mass weight to the presumption and assumption of BIAS but in this case is all too provable starting with the employee of the court of protection user group associations ie HUGH JONES and its NOMINATED COURT OF PROTECTION Judges PELLING?? Plus OPG - HOVINGTON

17. This case was not about harassment or contempt of court this case was about the exposure of COURT OF PROTECTION ongoing frauds being committed and the failure to provide FAIR UNBIASED and IMPARTIAL courts where the man has been denied due process under the rule of law.

18. The man has been denied his chosen representation under ECHR laws where the misuse of power has been inflicted in a manner of TERRORISM upon the man for the whistleblowing of such multi-billion pound frauds still active by white collar criminals operating Jewish TALMUDIC LAW from within the legal fraternity and Judiciary protecting their RACKETEERING SCAMS.

19. CONFLICT of OATHS ie PUBLIC DUTY of the JUDICIAL OATH & MASONIC OATHs where we have yet to see any declaration of interest! Most bar members and politicians Judges Police and government ministerial positions are associated with MASONIC membership whose reputations for facilitating corruption are widely reported these days and where their OATHs obviously CONFLICT.

20. The 1st duty of a BAR member is to the court and the state/crown so where does that leave the public, and it states in legalese where there a conflict of interest the 1st must come first? This is a BIAS of huge proportion that accordingly is unlawful requiring by demand the intervention of a JURY.

21. Taken all in all the above position of the man reflects his distinct distaste for the enforced statute position of TYRANNY being used in a TERRORIST fashion in a common law jurisdiction that he is entitled to hold.

22. LIENS are the only way to hold to account those that chose to abuse STATUTE LAWs, COMMON LAWs & Court Procedure Rules, where there is NO LAW and there is only, OUTLAWS, then the man has reverted to a common sense common man way of proceeding to attempt to stem the flow of TERROR exuding from the STATUTE tyrannical JUDICIARY of TERROR of which is exuding all the signs of a hijacking by STEALTH, TALMUDIC law that denies all justice rights and property to Christians.

23. We have in our midst a CRIMINAL foreign power operating from within our establishment that has taken root. We seek the declarations of all involved of FREEMASONRY or JEWISH links.

24. It is a jury of twelve peers that can clearly, democratically see what makes common sense and what might be in the best interests & way to proceed for UK Christians in their own land.

END OF REBUTTAL CLAIM TO BE ANSWERED BY EACH

ORDERS by link by SHARPE HTTP://opg.me/SHARPEORDER.pdf Notice including Sharpe order of 26/1/2012 http://opg.me/Madetoday30.04.2012_merged15pages.pdf

Letter to SHARPE http://opg.me/judgesharp.pdf

OPEN LETTER 30/1/2012 http://opg.me/OPENLETTER.pdf

Letter from FOSKETT http://opg.me/foskitt.pdf

FOSKETT order 2/5/2012 http://opg.me/finalcourtorder02052012.pdf

17/12/2012 PELLING order 2MA91155 http://opg.me/Letterfrompannone19122012.pdf

4 Notices to court served on PELLING 14/1/2013 No1 STATUTORY declaration http://opg.me/statdec02012013.pdf No2 skeleton case argument http://opg.me/Skeletontodissmiss.pdf No3 high court notice http://opg.me/highcourtnotice14012013.pdf No4 contract tendered on Pelling http://opg.me/contracttendered11012013sealed.pdf THE JUDGE RAN OUT OF COURT

Nominated Court of Protection Judges http://www.opg.me/listofjudgesupdatedJun2013.pdf AFTER Pelling had the removal of my representation by security http://opg.me/orderforcommittal.pdf

Application to strike out the VOID order by PELLING http://opg.me/setaside2.COMPRESSED.pdf Order from SWIFT http://opg.me/6thmarch2MA90015.pdf

Application to strike out SWIFT order http://opg.me/STRIKETHEMOUT09032015.pdf Judging herself SWIFT makes new order of a LIMITED CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER?? http://opg.me/march10th2015order.pdf

There appears to be a conspiracy of collusion to prevent any justice and therefore this lien without rebuttals will attach to the original. http://opg.me/NOTICEtoHOVINGTON.pdf delivered 9/4/2015 http://opg.me/5pageoverview.pdf sent to HOUSE of LORDS

LINKS to exhibit 9 the full commercial lien http://opg.me/19122011all24.compressed.pdf LIEN http://opg.me/ADDENDUMtoLIEN.pdf delivered 01/05/2015

Made today 30.04.2012 addressed to the unconsented to star chamber court hearing & Judge listed 2nd May 2012 under the ref 2MA90015 & also all partners of PANNONE LLP this represents an OPEN Statutory Declaration of a Notice of Understanding and Intent

This notice is made in connection to unlawful hearings being conducted in my absence without my consent even after being served documents to refuse consent and I hereby wish all connected to take formal notice and understand that it is my intention to publish all connected documents in connection with commercial lien claims and debts that are and will be associated to the relevant parties inclusive of i.e, All 50 partners of PANNONE LLP previous CEO of Public Guardian Martin John and Judge Justice Sharp and or any further associated persons ie Judge in this case that might be further served as of today with a commercial lien claim as was described in previous correspondence connected to this notice that was previously issued as subsequent warning notices.

We, being, my mother and I would ask the “so-called” Judge & the “so-called” courts the question?

The Bill of Rights is quite clear that the only courts that have any legitimacy are common law courts with Jury’s... the so-called court hearing here has written to me to convince me that they have a right to have a star chamber court and that there is a compulsion on me to use same hearing & they are ignoring our common law rights because they have constructed what is in effect a judicial dictatorship. I therefore ask the courts to confirm that, do they still uphold the principles of common law... under the Magna Carta Act.. & The Bill of Rights.. Thus Underpinning common law courts with juries of 12 equal piers to make judgements.

If the answer is yes, then without the consent of all parties to this Star Chamber hearing the court is sitting unconstitutionally & more seriously unlawfully, with a Judge that may be committing perjury under his oath of office that is inconsistent with laws and usages of the realm in so called hearings.

If this star chamber court hearing continues to sit unlawfully as it did in the previous hearing it will have made me, my mother and my partner suffer a tort and under the provisions of TORT law and common law I am entitled to enforce a common law claim against you, as what has been done previous but not as yet enforced.

With regard to enforcement, It is my intention to carry out enforcement of new commercial lien claims against all further guilty parties if proceeded against alongside enforcing the previous claim of £9.1 million pounds against PANNONE PARTNERS LLP – HUGH JONES & EX CEO MARTIN JOHN.

It is with deep regret that levels have reached so low but my hands are clean in this instant matter. Michael of the family Clarke

31 Cherry Tree Rd Blackpool FY4 4NS Published on campaign website to OPPOSE PREDATORY GUARDIANS www.opg.me Due to the stress and ill health caused we currently live in exile Please reply ideally by email to [email protected] alternatively by fax to 01253 928008 As a last resort by donkey post:-31 Cherry Tree Rd, Blackpool FY4 4NS Tel: UK Mobile 0044 7523287267 Spain Mobile 0034 648522123 Tel: UK Manchester: 01614085008 FAO - COURT HEARING - PANNONE s HUGH JONES v MICHAEL CLARKE CASE: 2MA90015 2nd May 2012 FAO JUDGE FAXED TO THE COURT 01612405050 27th April 2012 Dear Sirs

1. I have requested in writing a constitutionally formed court in this very matter where a jury is present of 12 men or women of my equal piers to make judgement on the harassment charges laid at the legal fiction name MICHAEL CLARKE. This has been refused by I am told, a Judge Foskitt and I therefore do not recognise the court as a court of law no more than I would if it were a tennis court in which has a similar amount of authority to bring to bear without the consent of all parties. It is for this reason I believe that a statute administrative hearing requires the consent of all parties and I hereby refuse consent to this hearing as I did in the first hearing. This letter is written from the flesh and blood man “Michael of the family Clarke” and not the legal fiction person MICHAEL CLARKE in which I revoke all association with. This letter is written in an advisory capacity for the benefit of the persons whom may conduct what can only be termed as an “unlawful hearing” if it proceeds ahead without consent. When a person is treated unfairly by the government, including the courts, he is said to have been deprived of or denied due process and I firmly believe this is the case here. 2. ASSUMING, you assume my consent and proceed anyway, which I re-iterate, CONSENT IS DENIED, I then offer up the following information for your assistance. 3. All Judges take the Judicial Oath when they are sworn in:

“I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, in the office of Justice of the Peace/Judge, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the realm without fear or favour, affectation or ill-will”

‘Administrative Law’ (so called) forms no part of ‘the laws and usages of the realm’ - which Judges swear to the Sovereign to uphold via Promissory Oath that binds them to a specific course of conduct – otherwise they cannot be said to perform their judicial duties impartially. Performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take. A breach of that Oath is perjury. If the argument is that Common Law has no basis in administrative law proceedings (and therefore is irrelevant), it should be noted that administrative law has not been sanctioned by Parliament. It should also be noted that the crime of murder is a Common Law crime (“manslaughter”, etc. are Statutory … but “murder” still remains Common Law). Thus to disavow the Common Law, disavows the crime of murder. The consequence would be that someone could pre-meditate to take the life of another (without, necessarily, requiring any reason whatsoever!), and no crime would have been committed in that a circumstance. This is the absurd position we would all be in, without the protection of the Common Law. “Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful”. The case of R V Thistlewood (1820) established that “To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason”.

Halsbury’s Administrative Law 2011 confirms that administrative law is (nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them. 4. Gross acts of negligence have been committed against my mother whom I have cared for the last 16 years. As her carer I believe I hold a moral duty to offer her protection from theft, fraud, mal administration, lies and deceit all woven together in tangled web committed against her by what we believe to be a concoction of conspiracy & corruption by the judicial and elite processes collaborating under the collective guise of “Court of Protection” & “Public Guardian”. 5. It is for the above reason alone not to mention the ones listed previous that we believe a constitutional formed court with equal piers to judge is necessary and without such, is a deprivation of, or denial of, due process. In view of these accusations, you, the so-called Judge, cannot be deemed to be able to Judge this unlawful hearing, in a fair and impartial manner, which represents a conflict of interest. 6. ASSUMING as you do, the unlawful hearing proceeds further. The aforementioned criminal acts of theft, fraud, mal administration, lies and deceit that are and have been continued to be enacted upon my mother I have a Statute Legal and Lawful moral right to defend against in any manner which is affordable to proceed down. 7. In this particular case we proceeded down the lawful route of issuing a commercial Lien/claim against the Mr Hugh Jones and his partners whom are vicariously liable by condoning the criminal actions of their partner in crime. 8. Under the Mental Capacity Act Section 5, Acts in connection with care or treatment Section 5 of the Act clarifies that where a person is providing care or treatment for someone who lacks capacity then the person can provide the care without incurring legal liability The key will be proper assessment of capacity and best interests. This covers actions that would otherwise result in a civil wrong or crime if someone has to interfere with the person's body or property in the ordinary course of caring. For example, by giving an injection or by using the person's money to buy items for them. The Bill introduces a new criminal offence of ill treatment or neglect of a person who lacks capacity. A person found guilty of such an offence may be liable to imprisonment for a term of up to five years. 9. The Mr Hugh Jones and Pannone are guilty of the above referred to ill treatment and more severe, neglect. We have reported matters to all authorities without proper investigation to satisfactory levels and thus we have had no other option but to turn and use common law of which I believe under the Magna Carta Act I am entitled to do. I am also under the very “ACT of MENTAL CAPACITY Section 5” holding protection from any legal liability arising as a result of protecting my mother from the harm she is enduring under Hugh Jones deputyship’s guise of “PROTECTION & GUARDIAN”. 10. Hugh Jones is currently under investigation by the Court of Protection and is under scrutiny by our MP Gordon Marsden, we are also led to believe the Solicitor regulatory authority is still conducting their investigations. Mr Hugh Jones is a serial proven liar. Mr Hugh Jones has also several other clients with the same complaints.

It is for all of the above reasons their application for a continued further permanent injunction should be dismissed & further to, we believe that a constitutional court with a jury would also agree and that the impartiality would exist alongside there being NO conflict of interest.

Michael of the family Clarke. Affidavit Affiant: Mike of the family Clarke In the matter of the application by Pannones HUGH JONES v CLARKE [Claim: 2MA90015] In the 1st instant a bundle of papers was placed before me, 23/01/2012 addressed to the legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE and a 3 day adjournment given is respectfully not enough time to prepare any sort of defence or action. I request the hearing be transferred to COMMON LAW COURT because, I, Mike of the family Clarke being a flesh and blood man... a sentient being with free will and full cognizance of my responsibilities - do solemnly declare as follows: It is my understanding that: - Where there is an order – a bill becomes due. I will be billing PANNONES accordingly. MICHAEL CLARKE (AKA Mr Michael Clarke) is a legal fiction.

My statement of truth. I am not the legal fiction... MICHAEL CLARKE Or Mr Michael Clarke. I am not a public servant. I am a free man with free will. I rebut all assumptions and presumptions. I am in lawful rebellion as is my duty. I recognise no court unless it is a common law court. Administrative hearings have no authority without my consent. I am not a slave subject to the diktat of other flesh and blood men or women, save where I have consented. I do not consent to this tribunal/administrative process.

Re: Administrative hearings. Halisbury on Administrative Law 2011 confirms that such ‘law’ is an arrangement between the executive and the judiciary. The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country and no Act can be passed to legitimise them.

The Bill of Rights – stemming from the Declaration of Rights made all star-chamber courts unlawful. All administrative courts are in essence star chambers... i.e. not subject to the normal rules of evidence - not common law courts. Administrative hearings are subject to the consent of all parties.

Re non-compliance of orders made by an Administrative hearing and the claim of contempt of court Re: Contempt of Court. Archbolds 2011 Chap 28 Sect 11 page 2/1145

In Att Gen v Newspaper Publishing Plc. And others (1988) Ch 333 (Civ Div) Sir Donaldson M.R. said “That the mens rea in the law of contempt was something of a minefield. This was that it was wholly the creature of the common law....”

It is my sincerely held belief that all courts in the United Kingdom are now administrative hearings and not a common law court. There is no Act of Parliament that gives authority of an administrative hearing. A judge that acts contrary to their judicial oath – can suffer a commercial lien as can any individual that causes a tort.

I do not consent to the procedure of any hearing. I will only attend a common law court – AS IS MY RIGHT

Dated this: Thursday the 26th January 2012 Michael of the family Clarke______

OPEN LETTER 31 Cherry Tree Rd Blackpool FY4 4NS Pannone LLP 123 Deansgate, Manchester M3 2BU Ref: Your letter 30th January 2012 Dear Sirs This letter is addressed to all partners against whom our commercial lien of £9 million pound is perfected and thus the debt is owed. It is my common law right to tell the truth and publish the details of this debt wherever I choose. Please also be advised that I am being rushed to your “so called” justice. Any reference to a “defence” is a mistake. No “defence” is offered. No “plea” is offered. No “plea” is given. As previously advised, I do not consent to any “hearing”. I will respect only a decision in a common law court with a jury. With reference to the so called “order” by Mrs Justice Sharp, it has no validity what so ever, as I have not and did not consent to the hearing as per my affidavit in which was given to the court acknowledged by yourself. With reference to Mrs Justice Sharp’s order it is my understanding that this was an administrative hearing and has no validity what so ever as can be demonstrated by the lack of a signature. Where there is a cheque there is a signature, and without one the cheque has no validity. It should also be noted that I attended the court as a courtesy to advise the court of my position at the requested time of 10am where upon found the court doors locked and some vague advice of an adjournment. My affidavit for the court was taken from me by Pannone and court legal advisors and so my affidavit served to the court done.

Any attempt by any individual to intercede in this lawful process of a perfected commercial lien would be deemed to be an attempt to pervert the course of justice. This then being a tort against me, thus giving rise to a further commercial lien under common law.

Contempt of court is a common law offence and an attempt to impose the same without the benefit of a common law court would cause me a further tort and by itself warrant a further commercial lien. It should be noted that Mrs Sharp’s actions of trying to prevent my common law rights that Mrs Sharp is causing me a tort and has exposed herself to a commercial lien under common law process.

I have made my position perfectly clear and I hereby re-iterate, I will not consent to any hearings or procedures unless they are common law courts. It is my understanding that the hearing on the 26th January 2012 was an administrative hearing subject to the consent of all parties and as you are aware via my affidavit, I did not consent.

In relation to the term “defence statement” this should not be interpreted to have had any meaning under the provision of statute law. You should take it to mean advice as in, to inform you and not to be taken or interpreted as giving any consent, as this was clearly defined in my affidavit.

The “order” so called, has no validity and the suggestion that the court being an administrative hearing can impose their authority over our common law rights is a non-sense. With reference to any “hearing” in which you wish to engage that is not in a common law court with a jury, I will not be attending.

I have a perfected lien against you and I will do whatever is necessary to collect the debt. The attempt to issue an injunction against me is recognition of my “commercial lien”.

Michael of the Clarke family Michael: of the family Clarke 31 Cherry Tree Road Blackpool FY4 4NS

Judge Mrs Justice Sharp Chester Civil Justice Centre Chester

10th February 2012

Dear HONOURABLE Judge Mrs Justice Sharp, Re: YOUR Case Number: 2MA90015 (but not MINE)

I write on the basis of having received an email copy your unsigned determination. In where, you issued an injunction against the common lawful collection and publication, of our commercial lien. This being the case I’m sure you will understand why I could freely (if I wished) take not the slightest bit of notice of your Injunction.

Apparently I am threatened with contempt of court unless I take notice of your unilaterally- determined ‘directives’. The basic flaw in this threat is that, since you didn’t sit in a Constitutionally- convened Court of Law, I could not be guilty of the Common Law misdemeanour of Contempt of Court (which, being Common Law, would have to be proved to criminal standards, and decided by a Jury of 12. I’m sure you know this. However, if for any reason you did not, then you certainly do now), and thus your determination did not issue from a Court. Therefore I am, in fact and in Law, perfectly free to ignore your determination – since it does not carry the force of Law behind it. In this situation, should I find myself subsequently proceeded against, I will have suffered a Tort at your hands, and will create a Common Law Commercial Lien against you personally, via a Statement of Truth, in the sum of £5,000,000 (FIVE MILLION POUNDS STERLING).

Should you decide not to respond to this letter, with some form of LAWFUL AND SUBSTANTIATED REBUTTAL (for example a Statement of Truth, signed under penalty of perjury, and attesting to the fact that you were acting in full accord with your solemnly-sworn Oath of Office – even though you were supplied with chapter and verse as to why I was the one who needs protection, NOT the Claimants) within my period of grace (seven days), then I will be free to assume the doctrine of acquiescence, and that an Adhesive Contract is in place for my own chosen method of LAWFUL remedy.

Should you decide to respond with your own Statement of Truth, please make sure that it fully explains how you – a SINGLE Human Being (one supposes) – has the Right to ‘forbid’ My Self – another Human Being – the Indefeasible Common Law Right to issue a claim under common law (since all are equal, under the Law). Please also explain what claim you have over me without my consent as was stated within my affidavit in which you claim to have read? Furthermore any submission you may make in this respect will (quite obviously) be thoroughly scrutinised in conjunction with the Fraud Act 2006.

Thank you for advising me to use Solicitors, etc., and thereby accepting liability for their costs. I will send any future Legal Bills to Your HONOURABLE Self, via your Chambers. This response has been copied to various agencies, such as members of the PANNONES, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Chester Civil Court. Let those recipients remember that they are all ONE BOUNCED PAYSLIP away from needing to know the Truth, and how to deal with UNTruth. Let those recipients remember that Chester Civil Court has, in Truth – like ALL County Courts – no more actual authority than a Tennis Court. And let them realise that this instant matter is exposing that FACT.

Under the British Constitution, only an impartial Jury of 12 Human Beings has any real authority (carrying the force of Law) over ONE Human Being. That is the Common Law, aka the Law-of-the- Land. And let them realise that no-one – irrespective of ‘title’ or assumed ‘status’, due to any role they play within the system – is immune from the Law-of-the-Land simply because, IN LAW, TRUTH IS SOVEREIGN. I remain grateful, in one sense, to Hugh Jones and the HONOURABLE Judge Mrs Justice Sharp, for handing to me, on a plate, the golden opportunity to expose these FACTs to the light of day.

Sincerely without ill-will, vexation or frivolity,

(Obviously much more) Honourable Mike: of the family Clarke Without any admission of any liability whatsoever and with all Natural, Indefeasible, Rights reserved.

Skeleton case argument for motion to dismiss 14th January 2013 case 2MA90015 1030am MANCHESTER CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE. Jones v Michael of the Clarke family

1. I am a sovereign being with a flesh and blood soul and claim my inalienable rights under the Magna Carta 1215 + Bill of Rights 1688 and more as per prior statutory declaration. No Jury of 12 no case to answer. 2. Late service of documents outside the normal rules leaves the claimant without documents they can use. It also did leave no time for the defendant to access formal barrister representation. Hence representation hereby from common law advocates Roger of the family Hayes, Guy of the family Taylor and Gary: Hollis 3. CPR Civil Court Procedure Rules that are consistently mentioned are to be struck out due to the fact the claimant has failed in the overriding objective of mediation to resolution before court where the claimants have point blank refused. EVIDENCED BY ROGER HAYES third party offer recently. 4. I HAVE AN HONESTLY HELD BELIEF... that the court orders are void... the court has no jurisdiction... and this being the case I have every right to keep publicising the material we are publishing. I also have a recording/transcript of PARTNER of PANNONE Hugh Jones stating and I quote, @22min15sec “post it all on the website, say what you like” & @23mins10secs, “post what you like on the website”. 5. The case stems from an original miscarriage of justice via the fraudulent court of protection where a current criminal case is lodged for ‘fraud’ on number ‘20130087’ Court of APPEAL and we believe any criminal element demands the attention of a jury of 12 and takes precedent over any civil matter. 6. Mental Capacity Act section 5 - Acts in connection with care or treatment

 Section 5 of the Act clarifies that where a person is providing care or treatment for someone who lacks capacity then the person can provide the care without incurring legal liability. The key will be proper assessment of capacity and best interests.  This covers actions that would otherwise result in a civil wrong or crime if someone has to interfere with the person's body or property in the ordinary course of caring.  The Bill introduces a new criminal offence of ill treatment or neglect of a person who lacks capacity. A person found guilty of such an offence may be liable to imprisonment for a term of up to five years. Ie., HUGH JONES exchange rate losses from emigration of 4 years being forced to live of sterling without jurisdiction or no euro account opened equaling neglect therefore torts. Single loss alone £100,000

7. I am entitled to free speech on a website, I am entitled to campaign outside the offices of Pannone, I am entitled to research the properties in relation to Pannone Partners in relation to a deed of debt accumulated of £9,000,000 by PANNONE LLPs wilful neglect to answer the allegations laid out before them in sworn affidavits before god not only the commercial lien but also here in this case they still have wilful denial of mediation to negotiation. 8. The harassment injunction judges where lied to, to gain their injunctions eg my mother’s life expectancy was 83 as per heads of damages proof not 70 as was their statements of lies. 9. A platform for this grievance has finally been given last Friday the 11th January 2013 by the LONDON appeal courts where they have accepted this under number 20130087 FRAUD 10. VOID ORDERS - No jurisdiction Notice to the High Court:

Delivered by hand – at the Manchester Justice Centre:

14th January 2013. CASE 2MA90015

Notice is given to ‘the court’ of the following: -

In the matter of MICHAEL CLARKE (legal fiction).

 Challenge of jurisdiction:  Challenge of the legitimacy of the judge:  The Queen is no longer sovereign:  All prior orders are void:  There is no case to answer:

This notice is delivered in writing prior to the commencement of any hearing in recognition of the fact that in the past when reasonable approach has been made to ‘the court’ to deal with the issues presented below… the court has adopted a position of abandonment – and has resorted to secret hearings to declare judgment in an effort to retain its authority… we can no longer tolerate avoidance of the facts and we thus challenge the court to address these issue or be condemned by its own acquiescence through silence.

No court can make judgment in its own cause… it is anathema to justice. We claim that the High Court has no legitimacy… because it fails to uphold the rule-of-law and has resorted instead to the rule-of-force (coercion) to impose its claimed authority.

Legitimate authority derives from consent not coercion.

The court must address the issues raised or the authority of the court evaporates. The issues are not going to go away and more and more people will challenge the court until addressed.

Challenging the authority of government and the legitimacy of the judiciary is a democratic right where questions of propriety arise

Challenge to Jurisdiction:

In the matter of MICHAEL CLARKE (legal fiction):

MICHAEL CLARKE is a legal fiction - summonsed by High Court order to ‘appear’ today and is presented to the court as ordered – in recognition of the authority of the court and its jurisdiction over the legal fiction The legal fiction appears by way of a copy of the birth certificate… as the ‘original’ certificate is not available.

MICHALE CLARKE as referred to in the High court document is not a living sentient being… i.e. a man – this is self-evident - as no man is subject to the authority of any other without his consent - we are all born equal. This is not a romantic notion it is a statement of cold hard fact.

1

Neither the denial or bluster of the legal profession in any capacity will suppress the authority of logic – and we present to the court the logic that ‘no man has authority over any other without their consent’ – if the court claims so to have… show the law.

The authority of statutes are imposed legally upon ‘persons’ which are corporations. The legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE is a corporate entity. ‘Person’ is not defined in statute law as ‘a man’ and therefore it isn’t ‘a man.’ The authority imposed upon the legal fiction the ‘person’ transfers to the man upon consent – upon using ‘the name’ of ‘the person.’ No consent = no authority. Imposed authority is coercion. Coercion is unlawful.

The name MICHEAL CLARKE does not attach itself to a man as a compulsion… is happens only by consent.

No authority exist that permits one man to impose his will on another man without his consent… this is unlawful. The government can however claim authority over the legal fiction, created by government.

The court repeatedly avoids this issue… because the legal fiction is the foundation of its authority and with this revealed… the true authority of the court i.e. ‘the consent of the people’ is exposed. The courts paranoia – that it will lose its authority if the legal fiction is exposed is unfounded… the reverse is now the case… the legal fiction (115 million pages on Google) is well and truly established as a fact and the continued denial by the High Court only serves to diminish its authority… by diminishing trust in it. It must surely be the case that Judges who continue to deny the legal fiction will attract cynicism and distrust to all judgments of the court, thus bringing it into disrepute.

No group of men can write regulations (Acts of parliament) to subject other men to their arbitrary authority – we are governed by consent – this is not a hollow claim – it is a maxim and is the very foundation of our governance. Statutes have only equal authority of government, they do not exceed that authority – thus statutes must also be subject to our consent and the withdrawal of same.

We know fully how that consent has been secured through the legal fiction… High Court judges know how consent is secured through the legal fiction and through presumptions, in the absence of the denial of consent.

Let it be made clear… consent is and has been denied consistently – all presumptions and assumptions are denied.

The jurisdiction of the court is subject to the consent of all parties to a dispute.

If the ‘High Court’ insists on asserting that it has authority beyond consent over the man (not the legal fiction) then show the law that authorises it. If the court insists on imposing its claimed authority - in the face of the denial of consent then a claim is raised that a tort has been committed against the man and the liability falls to the administrator of the court.

If the High Court will not give way to the demands of the people that it respect and uphold our laws - then its authority evaporates… and its relevance diminished to nought. All that remains is tyranny.

The jurisdiction of the court is challenged on several levels… even under its own rules.

No case to answer: There is no subject matter. Late delivery by the Pannone.

Hearsay (written affidavits) inadmissible – due to ‘Notice of intention to rely on such evidence’ not given.

The court claims to control who can and cannot address the court. ‘No right of audience’ this is a patently bias in favour of the legal profession – bias is unlawful. A judge who imposes the restriction of ‘No right of audience’ must recuse themselves for bias. [Barristers are servants of the court – this is a conflict of interest where the ‘defendant’ is challenging the authority of the court.]

Representation in court by individuals who are not servants of the court will be more robust in their challenges of the court. The exposure of the legal fiction is testament to this.

2

Challenge to the legitimacy of the judge:

 The authority of the High Court judge is challenged - where there is no evidence of the authority so claimed then none exists. We have moved beyond ‘authority by assumption.’ Authority by one can only be imposed on another with their consent… if no consent is given then the imposition of authority implies a master slave relationship… slavery is repugnant and goes against the basic principles of a civil society – those who insist on the imposition of their authority without consent are tyrants – and tyrants are a threat to the peaceful coexistence of all free people – they must be vanquished.

 Tyrants have been dealt with before – Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights is the legacy of that struggle and these laws are at our disposal today to strike down any new attempts at tyranny – even when it comes dressed up as law.

 Acts of Parliament are not laws… if they were, they would be called Laws of Parliament. Acts of Parliament are merely statutes, they are referred to as statutes … and statutes gain the authority of law when they are consented to. We are not adverse to consenting to statutes – but those designed to impose overbearing control will be opposed – and rightly so.

 The constant imposition of unreasonable statutes is the flint to the dry grass… and the judiciary may be the first bale to burn.

 The authority of the judge derives from the sovereignty of the people on whose behalf they administer justice… they do not impose their decisions on their own created authority. The people’s authority is represented by our Sovereign Monarch… to whom the judiciary give sworn allegiance that they will uphold our laws.

 If there is any diminishment of the standing of the Monarch then the authority of the judge fails because he/she too would lose standing.

 Where the Monarch’s authority fails… the people’s authority remains intact… because the people’s sovereignty is supreme.

 Where the Monarch’s authority fails – so does the judges – who must then seek a new authority from the people… not from politician’s as this would destroy the fundamental principle of the separation of powers – and judges cannot create their own arbitrary authority.

 The Monarch’s authority has failed… brought about by the duplicity of parliament which has surrendered its own authority contrary to our constitution. Her majesty did not prevent the surrender of parliament to a foreign power by refusing the Royal Assent – despite over a million signatories in petition. Parliament may well have surrendered its sovereignty to a foreign power… but the people’s sovereignty remains intact.

 The people’s sovereignty is secure and our constitution defends it through its various elements such as Magna Carta.

 Magna Carta is the law and judges of the High Court must submit to it – or suffer the consequences of the law.

 Nobody is above the law – and that includes High Court judges.

 Lord Scarman said… “A government above the law is a menace to be defeated”

 It is undeniably the case that a judiciary above the law is a tyranny to be defeated………. our law is unequivocal and it is this: - “No man shall be imprisoned without a jury of his peers”

 It seems that today’s judges have been ‘trained’ beyond the capacity to understand this basic and simple logic.

 Those judges who step over that mark and act in defiance of our law must be held to account and striped of their duties – and their pensions.

3

 If this court does not concede to the demand of a trial by jury then that demand will go to the highest court in the land… the people’s grand jury – to settle this matter once and for all.

 If it is necessary for the people’s grand jury to be called upon… and it finds in favour of trial by jury as it surely will because it is the unquestionable right of the people, then the full body of High Court judges will have to be dismissed and replaced. It is not beyond the powers of the people to do this.

NO SOVEREIGNTY:  The sovereignty of the people is not in question – but the sovereignty of Her Majesty must be seen to be in doubt – if the claim made by John Major (Ex Premier) has any validity. Major said of the Queen “ The Queen is a citizen of the European Union” – this claim is to imagine the death of the Queen. The Prime Minister would not make that statement without legal advice because of the constitutional significance.

 The implications are that the Queen has accepted mediatisation. i.e. she is no longer sovereign.

 If the Queen is no longer sovereign – where do the courts and judges claim to have secured their authority?

 The political establishment have devised a wheeze to avoid this vital question… they obfuscate with the phrase ‘shared sovereignty’ which is an oxymoron and can be discounted as nonsense.

 We either have sovereignty or we do not. If we have sovereignty then the authority of the court is not in question… only its actions. Its actions to deny trial by jury are unlawful. There may be some ‘legal’ provision to deny a trial by jury (it is doubtful) but even if there were -‘legal’ is not ‘lawful’ and where they are in conflict then ‘the legal’ provision would not stand because it would be defeated by our common law (supreme law).

 If the Queen is no longer sovereign, then the authority of the High Court falls on this reality. If the Queen is still Sovereign then there should be no problem getting confirmation of this fact from Her Majesty… there are channels to secure this written confirmation by Her Majesty’s Private Secretary. This is not beyond the capability of the High Court for Her Majesty’s Sovereignty to be confirmed in writing. Silence will tell all.

Re: Constitutional Monarchy

 The United Kingdom is defined as a constitutional monarchy because we have both a constitution and our Head of State is a Monarch. Our constitution defines our form of government – the government does not define our form of constitution – in recent times this principle has been unlawfully reversed without the consent of the people and has been carried out by unscrupulous politicians, aided and abetted by members of the legal profession. The courts to date have made no contribution to stopping this process of change that has diminished the people’s sovereignty whilst enhancing authority elsewhere including with foreign institutions.

 If the sovereignty of the people has been compromised and the reversal is not challenged, then we are clearly culpable through our own apathy.

 The constitution is the foundation of our freedoms and our liberties and MUST be upheld by the courts… or the courts must be abandoned.

 We now have a government that seeks to rewrite our constitution and by so doing empower itself – at our expense.

 A demand for jury trial is exercising our constitutional rights, which if denied gives evidence of collusion by the courts with unlawful governance – we cannot be allowed to stand. This is treason.

Void Orders.

4

 No order made by a court that lacks jurisdiction has any authority – it is void.

 A void order cannot be breached – the order does not exist.

Does the court claim that MICHAEL CLARKE is a man? – then let the court provide the proof. The evidence of logic to the contrary overrides any such claim.

Does the court claim authority over the man? – Then Let the court provide the proof.

Can ‘the judge’ give evidence of his authority… his oath of office? His Warrant from the Queen?

Is the Queen still Sovereign? The evidence suggest not.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

We understand that the judiciary take oath amongst themselves not to engage in any discussion in court re the legal fiction entity and under pressure to do so they are instructed to abandon the court… suppression of the fact re the legal fiction being paramount.

There is recurring evidence to support this claim… the judiciary will not discuss this matter – which gives rise to the certainly of the legal fiction. There are in excess of 115 million web sites on Google which overwhelming support the concept of the legal fiction… this is quite staggering - there is random but sparse opposition to the idea… logic dominates. To reinforce the position… the judiciary will not engage.

If the judiciary serve another master… then they must recuse themselves.

We understand that the court order stipulated that MICHEAL CLARKE should appear before the court – and this order has been complied with. If the court dissents – then the court should give evidence as to who the name is. A judicial determination.

The man is prepared to present himself to a court of law… he is not adverse to justifying his actions… but he will not respond to coercion and the threat of violence against him made BY THE COURT – coercion is unlawful – the courts themselves are not above the law.

The man will make himself available to a common law court.

Show the law where the court claims the authority to imprison a man without a jury of his peers. We present Magna Carta as the law – well established… that says he must have a jury trial.

The CPR may not provide for a jury trial – but nor does it provide for its exclusion. Nor does it claim the right to suppress our constitution… it seems to leave this to individual judges… if they are bold enough to do so. Surely the CPR rules are a trap for unwitting judges.

The matter to hand:

Contempt of Court.

 Honestly held belief: Freemen have an honestly held belief that they have a right to a fair trial… which means a jury trial – and that statute courts are subject to consent. Where there is no jury trial facilitated by the court and no consent given by the man then there is a legitimate challenge that orders of the court are void.

 The denial of a jury trial is bias.

 No contempt of court can be claimed to exist where no jurisdiction exists… and where no order has been breached because the order is void.

5

 If the court does not have jurisdiction… on subject matter… then its order is void… and ignoring those orders is therefore not a contempt of the court.

 Any denial of due process would warrant a claim of a void order.

The rule-of-force.

 The threat of force is coercion:

 THE JUDGE may take it upon himself to engage force to demonstrate his unproven authority… this would be deemed a criminal act in the eyes of the man - the man reserves the right to use all lawful means to defend his rights, freedoms and liberties… and he reserves the right to pursue justice beyond the court system if this fails in its duty to preserve impartiality.

 The people’s authority must prevail – through the rule of law – not the rule-of-force.

 If the ‘High Court’ threatens us with violence to secure its claimed authority – we have no option but to concede under duress. But there should be no doubt about the dynamics of the situation thus created. Our concession should not be construed as an act of weakness – we will be pragmatic in the face of adversity – and bide our time.

Lawful Rebellion: The people of Britain have a right to rebel against arbitrary and unjust governance… that this exists is demonstrable. The Lawful Rebellion movement gathers momentum and the underlying demand is that the government and the judiciary respect our common law right of which Magna Carta is a foundation.

Where the judiciary will not recognise Magna Carta… we will not recognise them.

The ball is in the court. What game shall we play?

The Real issue-

The real purpose of the harassment claim – it is an attempt to gag.

The man has claimed that ‘in his view’ one of the partners, also a plaintiff - Hugh Jones - is a crook who has stolen his mother’s money.

He has called on the partners in Pannones to investigate and provide a thorough and transparent investigation… which they have refused to do. Pannones defer their responsibility to an external body… the secretive ‘Court of Protection’ which according to the accounts of many… is protecting criminality, not vulnerable people.

The man has good cause to claim that there is collusion between Hugh Jones, the Court of Protection and their ombudsman… again these impressive sounding ‘bodies’ of so called authority are always represented by a single individual, all of whom hail from the same profession… the opportunity for collusion and corruption is not unimaginable… and hence why the man has pursued the common law process of a commercial lien.

The man has a lawfully obtained and fully perfected commercial lien against the Pannone Partners to the value of Nine Million pounds. The man has every right to pursue payment of this debt and no court has the right to deny this.

Another single member of the legal profession (a judge) tried to declare this illegal… which is fine because the commercial lien process claims no ‘legal’ status… it is entirely an animal of the common law process and is thus ‘lawful’ and derives it legitimacy through common law and irrefutable logic.

It is telling that Pannones have done everything in their power to avoid the simple process of an internal inquiry into the allegations of corruption of one of their partners… it raises serious questions as to WHY? What have they got to hide. 6

Pannones get their business from the Court of Protection… the Court of Protection have appointed Hugh Jones… and the Court of Protection cannot be investigated. Hugh Jones and Pannones could ‘thank’ the Court of Protection and nobody would know…. The ‘set-up’ is protected… this is probably why it is called the Court of Protection

Pannones are desperate to gag the man… using the harassment Act and the man is determined to expose the alleged corruption, using the pressure of persistence – because there is no remedy in the legal system.

The man has a duty to prevent crime when he sees it happening… and this is precisely what he is doing.

The man has declared war on Pannones… despite all the pressure he has brought to bear, they have still not investigated Hugh Jones – ONE HAS TO ASK – WHY?

On the balance of probability… it seems that there is more to Pannone’s refusal to provide a proper and meaningful explanation of where the man’s mother’s money has gone… in their robustness to avoid answering some simple questions Pannones have preferred to subjected themselves to a ‘sustained pressure’ to expose the truth.

Pannones would obviously like the pressure to stop… and it is so easily achieved. Provide the answers re the alleged corruption by Hugh Jones and the problem will disappear.

Sustained pressure… is not harassment. It is a legitimate method to prevent crime when the ‘appropriate bodies’ refuse to do so.

The Great Irony.

One of the plaintiffs in this matter a Mr Paul Jonson –titles himself as HEAD OF CORPORATE RESOLUTIONS - an offer was made to Paul Jonson for mediation in an attempt to ‘resolve’ the matter – which was declined by him.

It seems that the Pannones crew are a strange bunch - simple not what they claim to be… with a resolutions department that avoids resolution and a protection department allegedly not protecting - and with some very important issues about alleged corruption in their ranks to still to address.

The claim of harassment is a gagging ploy.

The exposure of Pannones as a direct consequence of the man’s probing may reveal that there is more to this than meets the eye. We should applaud the man for his persistence – and condemn Pannones for their evasion of the truth.T

Pannones had the choice of going the very easy route - by providing transparency and answers to easy questions… or the enormously hard route of prevarication and dodging the issue - subjecting themselves to a barrage of pressure (all is fair in love and war… and it is Pannones after all who declared war on the man).

Why did they choose the hard route if they had nothing to hide?

This issue is not going to go away… Pannones need to face up to the reality that they will either settle this matter by resolution or they are going to spend the next few years fighting more claims… the commercial lien of nine million pounds is lawfully enforceable… no Statute judge has the authority to defeat a common law process. They are acting beyond their authority – probably due to ignorance.

Conclusion:

The man has made a statutory declaration that he is NOT the legal fiction Michael Clarke.

The court order that MICHAEL CLARKE appear – has been complied with.

The order if it is claimed to be against the man – is void.

7

Nominated court of Protection Judges

North West Region Name Resident Court 1. District Judge Michael Anson Preston 2. District Judge John Coffey Liverpool 3. District Judge Helen Conway St Helens 4. District Judge Claire Evans Bolton 5. District Judge Charles Fairclough Manchester 6. District Judge Anthony Harrison Manchester 7. District Judge Charles Khan Manchester 8. District Judge Ranj Matharu Manchester 9. District Judge John Park Carlisle 10. District Judge Louise Relph Manchester 11. District Judge Stephen E Rogers Crewe 12. His Honour Judge John Appleby Manchester 13. His Honour Judge Martin Allweis Manchester 14. His Honour Judge Kevin Barnett Warrington 15. His Honour Judge Nigel Bird Manchester 16. Her Honour Judge Margaret De HaaS QC Liverpool 17. His Honour Judge Stephen Dodds Liverpool 18. Her Honour Judge Barbara Forrester Carlisle 19. His Honour Judge Allan Gore QC Liverpool 20. His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton Manchester 21. His Honour Judge David R Hodge, QC Manchester 22. His Honour Judge Peter Hughes QC Carlisle 23. Her Honour Judge Lindsey Kushner QC Manchester 24. His Honour Judge Tony Lancaster Lancaster 25. Her Honour Judge Lesley Newton Manchester 26. His Honour Judge Mark Pelling, QC Manchester 27. His Honour Judge Jeremy Rawkins Lancaster 28. His Honour Judge Philip Raynor Manchester (Admin court cases) 29. Her Honour Judge Maureen Roddy Manchester 30. Her Honour Judge Barbara Watson Preston

North East Region 31. District Judge Peter Bellamy Rotherham 32. District Judge Margaret Glentworth Leeds 33. District Judge Nicholas Goudie Newcastle 34. District Judge James Howard Gateshead 35. District Judge Philip Jackson Newcastle 36. District Judge Gordon Lingard Skipton (4 days) Bradford (1 day) 37. District Judge John Mainwaring-Taylor Teesside 38. District Judge Paul Mort Sheffield 39. District Judge David Oldham Sheffield 40. His Honour Judge John Behrens Leeds, Newcastle (Chancery ) 41. Her Honour Judge Angela Finnerty Leeds, York 42. His Honour Judge Peter Hunt Leeds

list of judges updated Jun 2013.doc 43. His Honour Judge Roger Kaye QC Leeds, Newcastle 44. Her Honour Judge Judith Moir Newcastle

Midlands Region 45. District Judge Mathu Asokan Birmingham Civil Justice Centre (BCJC) 46. District Judge Tony Davies BCJC 47. District Judge Sally Dowding BCJC 48. District Judge David England Walsall 49. District Judge Dorothy Flood Northampton 50. District Judge Dympna Maughan BCJC 51. District Judge David Millard Nottingham 52. District Judge Debbi O'Regan BCJC 53. District Judge David Owen BCJC 54. His Honour Simon Barker QC BCJC 55. His Honour Judge Martin Cardinal BCJC 56. Her Honour Judge Estella Hindley BCJC 57. His Honour Judge Christopher Plunkett BCJC 58. His Honour Judge Charles Purle QC BCJC 59. His Honour Judge Mark Rogers BCJC 60. Her Honour Judge Sybil Thomas BCJC

South East Region 61. District Judge Peter Glover Dartford 62. District Judge David Hebblethwaite Tunbridge 63. District Judge Graham Parnell Ipswich 64. District Judge Michael Payne Oxford 65. His Honour Judge Mark Everall QC Reading

South West Region 66. District Judge Alex Ralton Swindon 67. District Judge John Sparrow Southampton 68. District Judge Alan Thomas Gloucester and Cheltenham 69. District Judge Brian Watson Bristol 70. His Honour Judge Paul Barclay Bristol 71. His Honour Judge Mark Horton Exeter 72. His Honour Judge Nicholas Marston Bristol 73. His Honour Judge David Tyzack QC Plymouth and Exeter

Wales Region 74. District Judge Richard Dawson Cardiff 75. District Judge Owen Williams Llangefni / Caernarfon 76. His Honour Judge Daffyd Hughes Caernarfon 77. Her Honour Judge Isabel Parry Cardiff

London Region Principal Registry of the Family Division 78. District Judge Penny Cushing (PRFD) 79. District Judge Lorna Grosse Wandsworth 80. District Judge Richard Harper PRFD

list of judges updated Jun 2013.doc 81. District Judge Susan Jackson Central London 82. District Judge Heather Johns Barnet 83. District Judge Marc Marin Barnet 84. District Judge Chris Simmonds PRFD 85. District Judge Susannah Walker PRFD 86. His Honour Judge John Altman PRFD 87. His Honour Judge Rodger Hayward Smith QC Chelmsford and PRFD 88. His Honour Judge Michael Horowitz QC PRFD 89. Her Honour Judge Judith Hughes QC Snaresbrook and PRFD 90. His Honour Judge David Turner QC Chelmsford 91. Senior District Judge Philip Waller PRFD

London Central Registry 92. District Judge Elizabeth Batten Thomas More Building RCJ 93. District Judge Anselm Eldergill Thomas More Building RCJ 94. District Judge Caroline Hilder Thomas More Building RCJ 95. His Honour Judge Denzil Lush Thomas More Building RCJ

list of judges updated Jun 2013.doc

Request for an Urgent Application to SET ASIDE void order - Fees checklist Urgent applications in the High Court Family Division Case Number/Proposed Proceedings Date of original hearing 2MA90015 14.1.2013

Applicant/Appellant MICHAEL RAYMOND CLARKE

Respondent

MANCHESTER CASE 2MA90015 14.01.2013 – PELLING QC

Name/s of party making the application (please Address of party/legal representative making the state whether Litigant in Person/Counsel or application (please also provide phone number Solicitor) and reference)

Litigant in person with personal choice of counsel Due to exile By not being able to get legal representation due to & in my belief exists a legal blacklist and so represented by Chairman of the British [email protected] Constitution Group ROGER HAYES & GUY TAYLOR & OR GARY HOLLIS

Fee to be paid in the RCJG Fees Office If you cannot pay the fee you may be eligible for Room E01 (East Block) a fee remission in full or in part. The combined booklet and application form EX160A gives all (Please tick relevant box) CARER the information you need. You can get a copy FEE REMISSION FORM ATTACHED from www.justice.gov.uk

£50 Application without Notice Payment can be made by debit or credit cards, cash, postal orders or cheques, £155 Application with Notice payable to HM Courts & Tribunals

Undertaking to Pay

I/ ARE ON CARERS ALLOWANCE ONLY AND QUALIFY FOR FEE REMISSION attached {Name/Solicitors/Counsel} undertake to pay the outstanding fee due and payable above in respect of

this Application.Signed : NOTICE: If your payment is made by cheque which is subsequently dishonoured, steps will be taken by HM Courts & Tribunals Service to recover the fee. Non-payment of the fee may result in your case being stayed (delayed) or even struck out (stopped).

To be completed by court staff:

Name of Judge: Court number:

Name of Associate : Date:

FD App1 (04.14)

STATEMENT OF APPLICATION

TO SET ASIDE A VOID ORDER MANCHESTER CASE: 2MA90015

Manchester Justice Centre

Dated previously: 07.02.2014 & today 01.02.2015 - 1st February 2015

in an application to set aside committal

- Case 2MA90015 on 14.01.2013 i, a man, write in the matter of the above case from my safety in exile. i am requiring a common law court action to remove the void order placed upon the legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE. i state that the void order is so, for the following; http://self-realisation.com/equity/the-void-court-order/

1. There was no jurisdiction, as within the statutory declarations served upon you I claimed my divine proportion 1666, in reference to the cestui que vie act of 1666, that I am not dead that I am indeed alive and well, claiming all my in-alien-able rights as a man.

2. There was no jurisdiction in that under the 1984 Civil & County Court Acts that any criminal element within the overall case of allegations against PANNONE LLP should halt any civil matter of proceedings in favour of the criminal case to proceed beforehand.

3. There was no jurisdiction, as under mental capacity act section 5 a carer has protection from any civil liability in the care of a patient under the protection of the COURT OF PROTECTION whom as you were made aware of the allegations of FRAUD THEFT & MAL ADMINISTRATION.

4. There was no jurisdiction, due to a conflict of interest in you being a NOMINATED COURT OF PROTECTION judge, judging in your own cause called, a CONFLICT OF INTEREST., thus making the void order ULTRAVIRUS flawed.

5. There was no jurisdiction as a claim of common law jurisdiction was made via served statutory declarations by fax and by hand and in person by common law advocate ROGER HAYES.

6. There was no jurisdiction, because Under article 6 of ECHR I am entitled to a FAIR, UNBIASED & IMPARTIAL trial and thus to dismiss my claim of divine proportion claiming my in-alien-able rights to such where in a properly conducted common law case with a jury, there would have been, prosecution witnesses, there would have been a halt to the case because of claimed late service of documents by PANNONE LLP, there would not have been hearsay evidence allowed to bolster the assumptions and presumptions of a balance of all probabilities that he was GUILTY.

7. There was no jurisdiction, as we believe you have sworn an oath of allegiance to the brotherhood of the masonic lodge which is incompatible with the public oath of office you swore to undertake as a servant of her majesty the queen. CONFLICT of interest again.

8. There was no jurisdiction, because said, ‘Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974], ante, outlines the various ways which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced: "The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court"

9. There was no jurisdiction, because under ECHR article 6 section 3c /d… Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

10. There was no jurisdiction, because "i should be able to rely on freedom from bias"? "i should be able to rely on no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court"? Errr... Judges, Magistrates, Clerks, Ushers, Security Men? Well, they are 'functions of the court'. "Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirement is contempt of court"? i could not get legal representation & used my own choice of representation but they were denied access to the court... PELLING refused to allow them to represent me. That is a denial of my rights. My committal can therefore be challenged as being completely unlawful. My 'Order for Committal' states that i were NOT represented. i was represented but the judge intimidated my counsel into leaving... but only after he had abandoned court and refused to re-enter until they had gone.

11. SECTION 6 OF PART 81 – Committal for making a false statement of truth or disclosure statement… Committal application in relation to a false statement of truth or disclosure statement – Rule 81.18 (1) identify the statement said to be false;(2) explain –(a) why it is false; and(b) why the maker knew the statement to be false at the time it was made; and(3) explain why contempt proceedings would be appropriate in the light of the overriding objective in Part 1. Referring to the COMMERCIAL LIEN

Though i hold no respect for PELLING, i write to require that the court do the right thing here and remove the void order in his own, purge of the contempt, he had for her majesties court to which i may look favourably upon, but, that should he choose to continue his contempt i will seek other remedy.

Regards

mike clarke EMAIL ONLY DUE TO EXILE [email protected] www.ukrefugees.com

IN THE CASE of 2MA90015 MANCHESTER JUSTICE CENTRE

SUNDAY 8th March 2015 attached recent ULTRA VIRES order by Mrs Justice SWIFT

Sent by email and by SPECIAL DELIVERY & also FAXED to the court de facto

In another act of ULTRA VIRES and the misuse of power by misconduct in public office & abuse of process the so called Judge Mrs Justice Swift has again attempted to pervert the course of justice.

I am not dead

I am not a slave

I am not a ward of court

I will not yield to unauthorised self-imposed tyrannical authority that you believe falsely, you have.

I require a court de jure as is my right

You have no authority over my living soul to judge me because I do not consent to your BIAS

1. Lawyers and Judges are ALL members of the BAR 2. The BAR is privately owned and operated by the CROWN which is a CORPORATION 3. The Crown is domiciled in the City of LONDON which is owned by the VATICAN 4. This case 2MA90015 and its incorporated LIEN is against the CROWN and its agents 5. JUDGES of the BAR/CROWN would be judging in their own cause… BIAS 6. ONLY a Jury, a court de jure has real authority that is UNBIASED IMPARTIAL & FAIR 7. AN ACT that is void is so because it is against public policy, law, or order. 8. The NULLITY is noncurable it may be invoked by any party 9. I am invoking it and require NOT REQUEST but REQUIRE a STRIKE OUT 10. The temporary injunction by Mrs Justice Sharp and the permanent by FOSKITT ALL VOID 11. If I consented at any point to your authority your order would not be VOID 12. The application is TOTALLY WITH MERIT

My name is mike clarke I do not consent to your BIASED PARTIAL & UNFAIR self-imposed authority that by misconduct and attempted, more fraud upon the court, being forced upon me as a slave/ward of court, of which I am neither.

I require by demand a strike out of ALL void orders in this matter in favour of a court de jure where plaintiff can press the record of the facts NOT fiction & LIES from assumptions and presumptions where the witnesses can give under oath their evidence.

Sincerely without ill will frivolity & or especially VEXATION.

mike clarke

[email protected] www.ukrefugees.com

www.opposepredatoryguardians.com in short www.opg.me THE THEFT FRAUD AND MAL ADMINISTRATION OF A PATIENT WITH CAPACITY

1. 1995 mum had an accident. 2. The hospital were negligent. 3. Lawsuit followed in a claim for £1.7 million pounds. 4. 6 years later in 2001 the matter settled early out of court compromised at £775,000 5. The parties involved said mum was incapacitated and needed involvement from CoP* 6. In a hearing involving Judge Lush The Family and applicant to be receiver HUGH JONES 7. The Judge appointed the solicitor HUGH JONES in an order stating the fees are capped. 8. In a claim of capacity mum launched an appeal to be released from the court. 2001 9. I too of course backed it and helped with 2 doctors reports that concluded she had capacity. 10. Judge Denzil Lush sent his own doctor whom carried out a 40 minute appointment. 11. He did not agree on capacity and she was retained under the court of protection 2001. 12. The first years fees supposed to be no more than £2000 were £26,000 13. So mum was paid £200 week to live whilst her solicitor stole £507 weekly and hid the fact. 14. Accounts requested never given & in fact refused. 15. 2008 disillusioned we emigrated mum requested her remaining funds... refused by court. 16. Over 4 years the court by retaining her money in sterling lost a value of over £100,000 17. These accumulated in exchange rate losses countless complaints drew a response of zero. 18. After trying to sell her Uk property she then attempted to exchange it for a villa. 19. This was prevaricated delayed and over time lost by the solicitor trying to prevent it. 20. He then tried to sell her property quick by devaluing it. 21. We prevented this by returning to UK. 22. Mum tried to make a will over 11 years resisted by the deputy solicitor. 23. 2 more doctors reports were commissioned 2011 mum still had capacity 10 years later. 24. An application made to release her from the court. 25. The court sent in another of their doctors this doctor No 6 now, whom said she had capacity. 26. The Judge decided she had capacity to make a will but not to decide about her home. 27. Mum within 2 weeks made a LIVING WILL making me LIVING WILL executor. 28. Effectively anyone claiming she still was incapacitated on any subject I had authority. 29. Judge after reading the will said her house could not be sold in her lifetime ring fencing it. 30. After countless complaints about processes to all bodies known to man and no resolve. 31. We turned to common law and issued a common law commercial lien claim against solicitor. 32. Without a rebuttal to the allegations of theft fraud etc a tacit agreement would be in place. 33. This agreement with financial remedy attached would attach itself to all 50 directors. 34. No response came.. research followed on theirs properties to an attachment to land registry. 35. The solicitors suddenly responded with a harassment claim in a court denied a jury request. 36. Unlawful Injunction gained considered void by me led to another hearing of committal. 37. Unlawful court of committal grants a 3 month prison order without a requested jury!! 38. My mother and I fled the country into exile penniless!! 39. Her house now empty and justice still sought but none in sight we remain safe in exile. 40. The courts are operating in a state of TYRANNY without IMPARTIALITY and most definitely BIASED and UNFAIR doling out sentences from tribunals without consent. *Court of Protection is a Court of Neglection, A CoN where fraud and theft is unabated.

The matters contained above have been conveyed to the police 4 times, the SRA, The OPG, The PHSO, 10 Downing St and the ministry of injustice Ken Clarke, countless MPs MEPs so on and so forth all to no avail. The resulting losses to my mother that cannot be fully accounted due to a hidng of the accounts we suspect to be in excess of £350,000... The resulting processes encountered have caused a level of stress to only be termed I believe to be LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME. Contact: Mike 07523287267 email [email protected] web: www.opg.me Regards, Mike & Ann Clarke 31 Cherry Tree Rd Blackpool FY4 4NS

(in exile under a prison sentence for contempt)

F.A.O.

HOUSE OF LORDS MENTAL CAPACITY ACT COMMITTEE

We wish this submission to be considered before the Committee as evidence of the abuse of the Mental Capacity Act.

1. In 2001 my mother Ann Clarke was placed under the Court of Protection. Please download the pdf version of the 1st General order by Denzil Lush to be submitted .. http://opg.me/1stgeneralorder20032001.pdf In this order where we have highlighted crucial evidence that was made by the deputy a/ HUGH JONES and I quote, “the family should rest assured that my costs will not be eroding the capital settlement agreed for their mothers care and other specific needs. ” & b/ the master of the court DENZIL LUSH and I quote, “The reasonable fees and expenses of a professional receiver are recoverable from the defendant in the personal injury action as a head of damage. They do not simply fall on the patient’s fund. ” Total stolen fees £125,000

2. An appeal was made against this where 2 specialist Clinical Neuro Psychological Experts confirmed my mother's capacity was indeed intact. I provide an example here where this is one of the 2 clinical examinations that took 4 hours each to complete at great expense; This report by Dr Hana F Al-Ahmar we ask to be downloaded in pdf from here:- http://opg.me/drhanafalahmar220501%204pages.pdf & attached as a pdf to this emailed submission, additionally, a recorded telephone call from the very same Doctor explaining my mother should not be under this court that can be listened to here:- http://opg.me/Dr%20Hana%20220501.mp3 In total two 4 hour examination reports were presented stating the same she had capacity.

3. The court sent in their own Special Doctor a Dr Khan whom went on to conduct a so called similar exam that took 40 minutes!! Fortunately we recorded it to his unclinical exam listen to here:- http://opg.me/DrKhanOPG050901.mp3 here we suspect the 1st start of the fraud!

4. My mother at a later stage asked for £600 from her own funds to have that exam forensically examined and was refused the funds from the deputy.

5. In the first year under the deputyship we had more hardship than being on state Benefits, where the award was supposed to make her life easier. Constant complaints drew very little response for the first 2 years until I discovered he had taken in his first years fees a total of £26,377 when the original guide and promise made would be no more than £2000. So to recap, he had taken over £500 per week whilst providing £200 a week for mum to live off. Here we begin to see the 2nd evidence of fraud.

6. Mum asked for accounts but they were refused on the grounds he did not need to provide any as long as he submitted them to be approved by the court of protection which they were. This resulted in an initial fight back by publishing a website about the fraud which in turn brought about a meeting with the deputy and the court representative VIVIAN CREECH to iron out some compromises that HUGH JONES the deputy failed to stick to.

7. In 2008 disillusioned by the UK we emigrated to Spain and requests were made by my mother to have funds released to her as she no longer came under the Jurisdiction of England & Wales. The court/public guardian refused. The 3rd sight of more fraud

8. Complaints, several of, were made about the forced living from pound sterling and the devaluing exchange rate losses being incurred that drew nothing in response. The initial exchange rate when moving to Spain in 2008 was 1.5€ to £1 but that devalued to one point of 1€ to £1. Now here I wish to point out some simple mathematics. After several years of being fleeced & plundered by the deputy her cash estate was now at £200,000 or so we are lead to believe but we point out that without overcharging should have left her £300,000 which converted to euros would have materialised €450,000 euros!!!! and what might have been left when she was forced back to England could have been at even more profit. 4Th sight of Criminal neglect. Total exchange rate losses £100,000 - £200,000

9. Frustrated completely 2010 another clinical expert Nueropsychological doctor was sought to conduct a further test in which she stated your mother has capacity linked here; http://opg.me/CLINICAL%20PSYCHOLOGY%20REPORT%20AC.pdf The court and deputy then said you now need reports for specific items on capacity and so yet another was commissioned a year later in 2011 which again showed capacity please down load here ; http://opg.me/2011%20report%2031%20pages.pdf 5th evidence of fraud

10. A further application was made to discharge mum from the court but then the court again wanted their own doctor, so how many doctors do we need as this was No 6?? The court doctor agreed she had capacity to make a will one which she had been asking to make for 11 years but they tried to enforce on my mother their will which she refused. Eventually a LIVING WILL was made making her son the executor whilst she was alive if anyone claimed her incapacity further. Judge Jackson accepted this but believed she did not have capacity to decide whether to keep or sell her house!!!

11. Another hearing was made available for submissions about what to do about her house where eventually the Deputy was discharged because there was no money left!! The house was not to be sold but the costs of the hearings totalling £12,000 had to be charged to her property even though she won her case without formal representation where funds for that were obstructed by the deputy. So to recap... his costs and the siblings costs of objecting to the discharge of the deputy had to paid by my mother 6th evidence of fraud

12. The countless complaints made to various bodies inclusive of the OPG the SRA the PHSO the COP drew in reality just a sea of prevarication stalling and basically nothing. As a result we turned to common law where a commercial lien was issued on the Deputy and his company accusing them of Fraud all notarised & signed and sealed sent by recorded delivery asking for answers to losses. They failed to respond. Action was to start by attaching the lien debt to their properties in which they in turn they sought to get an injunction under harassment laws. JURY court demanded but refused and so the order considered VOID resulting in a temporary injunction. A further permanent injunction was issued in a VOID court. Section 5 of MENCAP was ignored – 7th evidence of more fraud 13. As I continued my investigations into their property they sought a committal order for contempt of another VOID court leaving me sentenced to 3 months prison and thus my mother & I fled the country into exile because we could not get legal redress for so called PROTECTED PARTIES ie; Me the carer Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act and my mother as a patient where her capacity keeps rearing its head.

14. We wish it to be noted that this submission is a very very shortened down version of the complete and absolute utter nightmare that we have had to endure that has ruined our lives. Anything further that ther committee wish to see can be at www.opposepredatoryguardians.com or www.opg.me or www.courtofprotection.me.uk

15. We provide bullet points of the grievances that we have had to suffer over years;

Our overall brief synopsis is,

• Denied legal representation • Common laws rights dismissed • What representation offered was deemed no right of audience and thrown out • Hearsay evidence admitted • No prosecution witnesses • Tribunal Admiralty Hearings denied consent but ignored • Mothers finances stripped of uncapped charges that were promised to be capped in 2001 • Failure to deliver requested detailed accounts and quite the opposite the hiding of them • Whilst in emigration for 4 years forced to live from pound sterling in a devaluing pound to some £100,000 • During that emigration outside England & Wales jurisdiction - Fraud by false representation • The prevarication and deliberate obstruction to my mother securing a property exchange abroad, twice. • The deliberate devaluing of her UK property to try and escalate a quick sale of her home • The failure to provide to my mother her own funds to use for representation whilst the deputy was paid to represent himself from mums own funds • The courts own rules and acts laid out ie Mental Capacity act section 5 to protect carers - IGNORED • After the deputy told my mother his charges are unlikely to exceed £2000 per year he took in year 1 £26,377 • Year 2 £14,000 and then proceeded to hide the fact. • He paid mum £200 weekly to live off whilst he took £507 weekly still unaccounted • The overall handling of mums finances to over £1.1 million pounds gone and unaccounted to mum whom... • Mum has 4 confirmed specialist doctors reports confirming that she HAS capacity!! • All complaints and investigations came to nothing - WOULD YOU TURN TO COMMON LAW?? • IF A JURY WAS INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE ABOVE - WHO WOULD WIN??? • IS THE CURRENT CORRUPT RULES AND SYSTEM LACED WITH BIAS IN FAVOUR OF ITS OWN AGENTS???

In short the OFFICE of the PUBLIC GUARDIAN and the Court of Protection have facilitated FRAUD against my mother and to try and cover that fraud from being exposed they have used harassment acts in tribunal courts to gain a VOID committal order against the CARER to, • STOP • SILENCE • GAG • & PERVERT THE COURSE OF REAL COMMON LAW JUSTICE WITH A JURY As a result I can only now say on a self diagnosis I am suffering L.A.S. Legal Abuse Syndrome from what can only be described as pure Mental Health torture at the hands of the;

MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005

Mike Clarke (son & carer of 17 years) & Ann Clarke (patient with capacity)

email [email protected] or [email protected] websites: www.opg.me www.opposepredatoryguardians.com

Sent to; Oswin Taylor Committee Assistant to the Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Tel: 0207 219 4878 E-Mail: [email protected] copied to the following

'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

Please acknowledge receipt of the above and that all linked documents will be printed off and submitted to the hearing, AND as we are still in exile from our Home country that will have to be by email TO... [email protected]