How the Insolvency Act works?

J Wilson made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Judicial College

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Judicial College.

Dear Judicial Studies Board,

I have been unable to find any case law concerning the
interpretation of section 271(3) of the 1986 Insolvency Act on any website, and of course I assume you have access to all decisions of the House of Lords or the new Supreme Court too.

Can you please therefore provide any information on any cases where a solvent person was declared bankrupt, contrary to this section of that Act? Did they get their bankruptcy order annulled?

It states clearly that a court may dismiss any bankruptcy petition "if it is satisfied that the debtor is able to pay all his debts" and later that "in determining for the purposes of this subsection whether the debtor is able to pay all his debts, the court shall take into account his contingent and prospective liabilities".

However it appears that courts routinely issue bankruptcy orders against solvent persons,even when they have savings, because there are no procedures in place, to ensure that any alleged debtor is even asked to provide any statement of their solvency. How can this possibly be legal if it is a requirement of the Act, that their solvency is a material factor to be considered and Judges take an oath to be just and fair?

If someone is able to pay all their debts, then the court should not make them bankrupt as that would be a perversion of justice, wouldn't it? Surely it would be considered as suppression of material evidence if there has never been any procedures in place to check 'solvency' before judgements are made? How have judges been instructed in these matters?

What is the guidance to judges on applying other sections of the Insolvency Act 1986, such as 282(1) and 375(1)which also gives powers to the court to review any wrong decisions?

So what instructions have been issued to the judiciary on this subject or on any case law decisions by the highest courts about a debtors 'solvency or otherwise' and the granting of annulments? I've found one reference to Howard v Savage BPIR[2007] 1097, which suggests to me that even anyone with sufficient equity in their home, to pay all their debts, should not be declared bankrupt as the debts are effectively secured against the property.

Also does the Judiciary uphold the principles of 'natural
justice', in particular the second one which states in Halsbury's Laws of England & Wales Vol. 8(2) para 119, that unless the defendant to any claim is given a chance to defend it and to know and answer the other sides claims, then any decision against them cannot stand?

Are judges instructed to uphold 'natural justice' when making their decisions, and if so by what instructions, which I assume you issue?

What case law has there been on this principle?

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson

JSB Publications,

Thank you for your email of 24 March.

The Judicial Studies Board is responsible for training judges. We cannot
offer advice on any individual set of circumstances; nor do we have a
database of case law. You may find the website of the British and Irish
Legal Information Institute helpful in that regard -
http://www.bailii.org/.

The JSB does not issue instructions to judges - who are of course
independent - but assists them generally with the law and its
application. Insolvency is treated on the JSB's Specialist jurisdiction
continuation seminar. You will be able to find out more about that
seminar in last year's Annual Report (see
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/aboutus/annualr...). Reproduced below
are extracts from the most recent guidance, relating to the sections of
the Insolvency Act 1986 that you mention.

Insofar as the term 'natural justice' relates to an independent
judiciary and the conduct of fair hearings, these principles underlie
the entire work of the JSB and are not the subject of separate
stand-alone guidance.

I hope that this is of some help.

Yours sincerely,

Andrea Dowsett.

'The court may dismiss a petition if the debtor has made an offer to
secure or compound which has been unreasonably refused (s. 271(3)).'

'A bankruptcy order may be annulled only in accordance with statutory
provisions.

There are four grounds:

* the order ought not to have been made (s. 282(1)(a) Insolvency
Act 1986);

* the debts and expenses of the bankruptcy have been paid or
secured (s. 282(1)(b) IA 1986);

* an individual voluntary arrangement has been approved (s.
261(2)) IA 1986);

* a fast-track individual voluntary arrangement has been approved
(s. 263D(3) IA 1986).'

'Rescission
There may be cases where it is more appropriate to apply to rescind.

Section 375 provides:

(1) Every court having jurisdiction for the purposes of the Parts in
this Group may review, rescind or vary any order made by it in the
exercise of that jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction has been described as "an exceptional reserve
jurisdiction only to be resorted to in the most extreme of cases [to
prevent] miscarriages of justice in the filed of bankruptcy law where a
person's reputation and freedom of action [were] at stake" (per Vinelott
J in Re a Debtor (No 32/SD/1991)(No 2) [1994] BCC 524).

The jurisdiction is properly invoked where there has been a change of
position or circumstances (Fitch v Official Receiver [1999] 1 WLR 242.

For a comprehensive review of the jurisdiction see Papanicola v
Humphreys [2005] 2 All ER 418 in which Laddie J pointed out that the
discretion was subject to guidelines:

(1) It gives the court a wide discretion to review, vary or rescind
any order made in the exercise of the bankruptcy jurisdiction. It was
not restricted to the review of the bankruptcy order itself.
(2) The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of
circumstances which justify exercise of the discretion in his favour.
(3) Those circumstances must be exceptional.
(4) The circumstances relied on must involve a material difference
to what was before the court which made the original order. In other
words, there must be something new to justify the overturning of the
original order. The review jurisdiction was not to be viewed as an
opportunity to put more forcefully a case which had already failed.
(5) There is no limit to the factors which may be taken into
account. They can include, for example, changes that have occurred since
the making of the original order, which were not brought to the court's
attention at that time.
(6) Where the new circumstances relied on consist of or include new
evidence which could have been made available at the original hearing
that, and any explanation given by the applicant for the failure to
produce it then or any lack of such explanation, are factors which can
be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion.

Although it is flexible it should not, however, be invoked in an attempt
to overcome the principle of res judicata or other legal restriction to
applying for relief (Brillouet v Hachette Magazines Ltd [1996] BPIR 518;
Hurst v Bennett (No 2) [2002] BPIR 102).

The court may allow fresh evidence (Re a Debtor (No 32/SD/1991) [1993] 1
WLR 314, although there is also authority suggesting the contrary,
Purvis v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1999] BPIR 396 per Hazel
Williamson QC).'

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Andrea Dowsett for JSB Publications,

Thank you for your reply, but the reason I wrote to the JSB was because the BAILII website is difficult to search without knowing the case reference. However I will try to find the few you've mentioned in your reply.

In regard to the rest of it I have some points which need clarification as follows.

Firstly there is the point on 'natural justice'. You state that the JSB does not issue instructions to Judges but merely assist them because they are 'independent'. I thought that the JSB was responsible for judicial training too, as it says on the website that your purpose is "to ensure that high quality training is delivered to enable those who discharge judicial functions in England and Wales to carry out their duties effectively, in a way which preserves judicial independence and supports public confidence in the justice system".

So my first question is simply to ask how 'training' can possibly be 'delivered' without 'instruction'? Independence of judges doesn't mean they become god like does it? Perhaps they think it does, because no one tells or 'instructs' them otherwise.

The second point on this is to ask how 'the public' can have any "confidence in the justice system" if judges can break the second law of 'natural justice', for example, as they frequently do with impunity. More so since the Internet application process was initiated where this process seems to result in automatic orders without hearings.

If Halsbury's Laws Vol 8(2)para 119, is correct then no judgement issued without a hearing can stand, so why are any ever issued? That reference doesn't suggest that there is any need to appeal such decisions because they "cannot stand" which is clearly unequivocal. So would you agree that anyone who is or was declared Bankrupt without a hearing, or if the petition were based on another court order issued without a hearing, then they have suffered an injustice which could be rectified by another judge using section 375 of the Insolvency Act?

With regard to section 271(3) I respectfully suggest that your answer on this has glossed over the point of my question entirely. You simply state that "The court may dismiss a petition if the debtor has made an offer to secure or compound which has been unreasonably refused". However, as I pointed out in my question it seems to me to have 2 conditions attached to it. Namely that the court may also dismiss any petition for bankruptcy "if it is satisfied that the debtor is able to pay all his debts" and later that "in determining for the purposes of this subsection whether the debtor is able to pay all his debts, the court shall take into account his contingent and prospective liabilities".

This suggests to me that in order to make any decision on bankruptcy it is obligatory that any judge needs to know the 'solvency or otherwise' of the 'debtor' against whom the petition is brought. It is not just a matter of them offering to pay the alleged debts, or 'secure or compound' (whatever that means) them. Or is that not what the JSB advises judges?

I also found that the Halsbury's Law book suggested that even the use of the word 'may' does not imply 'may not', because it is in fact used to confer power to the court to apply the law in a way which is compatible with the wishes of Parliament. So where does it say in the Act, that any solvent person 'may' be declared bankrupt without any judge 'satisfying themselves' whether or not any debtor "is able to pay all their debts"?

I can't find this anywhere in it although the Insolvency Service has told me that it is irrelevant to the court what the debtors solvency status is at the time of making their order, which seems like simple dishonesty to me and, by definition is corrupt. How many judges are prosecuted for perverting the course of justice in this way, along with the court staff who aid and abet such corruption?

Perhaps the JSB needs to instruct courts to keep statistics of how many cases are decided without any hearing, and exact details of why, as the Minister for Justice doesn't seem to require this to be done. Only when that figure is zero can there be any hope of confidence in the system being remotely just.

I would remind everyone of the Proclamation in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. "The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance", which no UK Government since 1949 seems to have complied with.

I was never taught about my rights and it seem that neither are judges, nor do they seem to care about them. What about the JSB?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Dear Judicial Studies Board,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Judicial Studies Board's handling of my FOI request 'How the Insolvency Act works?'.

This request for information from the JSB was initially made on the 24 March 2010 and although a response was sent on the 8th April, I found this to be unsatisfactory so sought further clarification of the State's interpretation (as the JSB represents it) of section 271(3) of the 1986 Insolvency Act. I have not even had any acknowledgement of that follow up dated the 9th April and it is now the 28th inst.

It seems clear to me that the latter part of this section creates an obligation on any Court dealing with any 'creditors petition' based simply on the £750 'bankruptcy level' to ensure that no solvent person is ever declared bankrupt based on this arbitrary amount.

The relevant words, as I have pointed out, are that "in determining for the purposes of this subsection whether the debtor is able to pay all his debts, the court shall take into account his contingent and prospective liabilities". The emphasis must be placed on the words "the court shall" in this latter part of section 271(3) rather than the words "may dismiss", as the JSB; the Courts and the Insolvency Service seems to apply in the former part of it.

I believe that this error has led to many miscarriages of justice because they have latched on to the wrong interpretation of this section when operating their business, which seems to be making people bankrupt to line their own pockets with fees, rather than the administration of justice.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho...

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson

Over, Darren \(ARU\),

Internal Review IR/65259/10

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 6 B
Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 4527
F 020 3334 2245
E [email address]

www.justice.gov.uk

21-MAY-10 Our Ref:IR/65259/10

Dear J Wilson,

Thank you for your correspondence of April 29, 2010, in which you asked
for an Internal Review into handling of your request for information
with reference number FOI/...(Old reference).

Your request for an Internal Review is being handled in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be passed to the Unit that
will carry out this process.

You will be contacted separately by the person conducting the review but
in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
queries. Please quote Ref: IR/65259/10 in all future correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Over
(Sent on behalf of Jacqueline Tedd)
Data Access and Compliance Unit

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Shore, Mark \(DJO-JSB\),

Dear Mr J Wilson,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Time Complaint.

Thank you for your e-mail of the 28 April 2010 which you made a complaint
concerning the length of time it was taking to respond to a request for
information you made on how the Insolvency Act works, dated the 9^th
April, which you have referred to in your e-mail of complaint.

Your time complaint has been passed to me to investigate to ascertain
whether we have failed to meet our obligations as laid out in section
10(1) of the Act. Section 10(1) states that the [insert name of authority]
must comply with section 1(1) promptly and in any event no later than the
twentieth working day from receipt of request.

You were sent a response to your request about training in insolvency on
the 8^th April. I have now completed my investigation and I can confirm
that the JSB have no record of the follow-up email dated 9 April that is
mentioned in which you seek 'further clarification of the State's
interpretation (as the JSB represents it) of section 271(3) of the 1986
Insolvency Act'. This will have to be resent for it to be processed in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

The fact you had made a clarification request only came to light when we
received your e-mail of the 28 April 2010. If you could resend the request
I can investigate whether it is different from the request responded to,
and whether the clarification allows anything further to be provided.

As for the handling of your original request I have investigated whether
anything further could have been added to the response and I am satisfied
that there is nothing I can usefully add to what was stated in the
previous response. To clarify there is no recorded information that is
held that I could provide which would answer that request as it is
currently worded better than the response that has already been provided.

I am satisfied that your original request was handled correctly. As
relates to the request of the 9 April I can advise that JSB have not
breached section 10(1) of the Act as that request has not yet been
received.

I trust this answer your complaint on the length of time it is taking to
respond to your request of the 9 April 2010, but if you are not satisfied
with this response you have further right of complaint to the information
commissioner, who can be contacted at the following address:

Information Commissioner Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

E-mail: [1]https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...

I hope that this reply is useful.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Shore

Head of Corporate Services

The Judicial Office for England and Wales

Steel House, 11 Tothill Street

London SW1H 9LJ

Phone: 020- 3334 0729

Fax: 0870 739 4352

DX: Steel House, DX 149820, Westminster 6

[2]www.jsboard.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...
2. blocked::../../../../mtheodore/Local Settings/Temporary Internet Files/OLK20E/www.jsboard.co.uk
about:../../../../mtheodore/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLK20E/www.jsboard.co.uk

Dear Shore, Mark (DJO-JSB),

I regret that I am somewhat confused by your response as well as shocked and appalled by it. If this is how State bodies deal with FOI Act requests, then I assume such low standards are reflected in their other work, which would explain why this country is in a complete mess.

Firstly, you seem to be saying that you are only looking at 'my complaint' dated 28 April as a 'Time Complaint' rather than looking at the entire way the information request has been dealt with, or any wider implications for the general public to whom these matters are relevant.

Secondly you say that "the JSB have no record of the follow-up email dated 9 April", yet it is on this Internet address, http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho... , as I advised you of in the Internal Review request dated 28 April. So how can they not have received it? This statement seems to me to be nothing short of a lie and hardly what should be expected from the Judicial Studies Board of all people.

So in order to clarify matters I will try to restate my requests in a different wording, in the hope that neither you nor the JSB can try to wriggle out of answering them again.

1. In the reply dated 8th April the JSB stated that they are responsible for the training of judges, but then contradicted that in their next paragraph, by claiming that they do not issue "instructions to judges". Nor do they "offer advice on any individual set of circumstances", which was simply fudging the issues I raised.

I was not simply seeking "advice on any individual case" but simply seeking the truth about how judges can make decisions without adhering to the correct interpretation of the law. So my first revised question on the 9th April was simply to ask "How 'training' can possibly be 'delivered' to judges without 'instruction'? When that is how the rest of us learn.

2. Secondly I asked "How 'the public' can have any
"confidence in the justice system" if judges can break the second law of 'natural justice', as they frequently do with impunity?", because I was told on the 8th April "Insofar as the term 'natural justice' relates to an independent judiciary and the conduct of fair hearings, these principles underlie the entire work of the JSB and are not the subject of separate stand-alone guidance".

That is not my personal experience of judges, nor that of many people using the website http://whatdotheyknow.com to try to get answers from the State about their decisions which I assume are made, based on their training. So I also felt it necessary to ask "If Halsbury's Laws Vol 8(2)para 119, is correct then no judgement issued without a hearing can stand, so why are any ever issued?". A lack of 'statistics' on this, which appears to be their answer is not an answer at all.

3. The JSB also stated that "The JSB does not issue instructions to judges - who are of course independent - but assists them generally with the law and its application". On that basis therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that some general guidance must have been issued in 1986 on 'How the Insolvency Act was intended to work' by someone in authority, perhaps Parliament who ought it seems to have communicated this to judges, through the JSB. Or is the State saying that Judges are left to their own devices in interpreting the law, without reference to the intentions of Parliament or 'guidance' from the JSB?

4. That is why I asked them in regard to section 271(3), because it appears from what the Insolvency Services has told me, that courts routinely issue bankruptcy orders against solvent persons,even when they have savings. "How can this possibly be legal if it is a requirement of the Act, that their solvency is a material factor to be considered and Judges take an oath to be just and fair?". The only 'answers' I got on 8th April were simply repetitions of what the law states, without any information of what 'guidance' is/was given to judges on it in 1986 or later, or even offering any to me.

5. I was also told on the 8th April that there were only four 'grounds' for annulment of any bankruptcy petition, one of which is "the order ought not to have been made (s. 282(1)(a) Insolvency Act 1986)". Surely then it is only logical that an annulment ought to be granted to any debtor who "is/was able to pay all his/her debts", before the making of the order, as any reasonable interpretation of section 271(3) implies that any such bankruptcy order against them "ought not to have been made". I find it unbelievable that the JSB has never given any guidance to Judges 'en mass' on this matter, nor can they find any case law on it either. So who takes responsibility for wrong decisions against solvent persons and how do they get 'just satisfaction' from the State for this?

6. Aren't such judgements simply proof of the incompetence of all State bodies, including the Courts and the Judiciary, when it comes to protecting the human rights of others? If the Law states that a solvent person cannot be made bankrupt then why has the JSB not issued clear 'guidance' to Judges and the Insolvency Service, who also seem to need to be told how to interpret it, if justice is to be seen to be done? That is why I asked them on the 9th April "So where does it say in the Act, that any solvent person 'may' be declared bankrupt without any judge satisfying themselves' whether or not any debtor "is able to pay all their debts"?", which is what it says they must do in section 271(3) before granting any petition for bankruptcy.

If this is unclear or they are unable to answer these simple questions, then who can?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Shore, Mark \(DJO-JSB\),

I am out of the office for most of 28 June. Please contact Mark Knight
(020 3334 0730) or Marie Rafter (x0728) if your message is urgent.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Judicial Studies Board,

I have been told by a Mark Shore, that you claim to have not received an email from me dated 9th April 2010, so I repeat here and would also point out that my reply to him today, has received an automatic response advising he is out of the office stating "I am out of the office for most of 28 June. Please contact Mark Knight (020 3334 0730) or Marie Rafter (x0728) if your message is urgent.". Please ask them to check his emails for one from me today, so that someone deals with it this week.

Copy of email dated 9 April 2010 from J Wilson to

Dear Andrea Dowsett for JSB Publications,

Thank you for your reply, but the reason I wrote to the JSB was because the BAILII website is difficult to search without knowing the case reference. However I will try to find the few you've mentioned in your reply.

In regard to the rest of it I have some points which need clarification as follows.

Firstly there is the point on 'natural justice'. You state that the JSB does not issue instructions to Judges but merely assist them because they are 'independent'. I thought that the JSB was responsible for judicial training too, as it says on the website
that your purpose is "to ensure that high quality training is delivered to enable those who discharge judicial functions in England and Wales to carry out their duties effectively, in a way which preserves judicial independence and supports public confidence in the justice system".

So my first question is simply to ask how 'training' can possibly be 'delivered' without 'instruction'? Independence of judges doesn't mean they become god like does it? Perhaps they think it does, because no one tells or 'instructs' them otherwise.

The second point on this is to ask how 'the public' can have any "confidence in the justice system" if judges can break the second law of 'natural justice', for example, as they frequently do with impunity. More so since the Internet application process was initiated where this process seems to result in automatic orders without hearings.

If Halsbury's Laws Vol 8(2)para 119, is correct then no judgement issued without a hearing can stand, so why are any ever issued? That reference doesn't suggest that there is any need to appeal such decisions because they "cannot stand" which is clearly
unequivocal. So would you agree that anyone who is or was declared Bankrupt without a hearing, or if the petition were based on another court order issued without a hearing, then they have suffered an injustice which could be rectified by another judge
using section 375 of the Insolvency Act?

With regard to section 271(3) I respectfully suggest that your answer on this has glossed over the point of my question entirely. You simply state that "The court may dismiss a petition if the debtor has made an offer to secure or compound which has been unreasonably refused". However, as I pointed out in my question it
seems to me to have 2 conditions attached to it. Namely that the court may also dismiss any petition for bankruptcy "if it is satisfied that the debtor is able to pay all his debts" and later that "in determining for the purposes of this subsection whether
the debtor is able to pay all his debts, the court shall take into account his contingent and prospective liabilities".

This suggests to me that in order to make any decision on bankruptcy it is obligatory that any judge needs to know the 'solvency or otherwise' of the 'debtor' against whom the petition is brought. It is not just a matter of them offering to pay the alleged debts, or 'secure or compound' (whatever that means) them.
Or is that not what the JSB advises judges?

I also found that the Halsbury's Law book suggested that even the use of the word 'may' does not imply 'may not', because it is in fact used to confer power to the court to apply the law in a way which is compatible with the wishes of Parliament. So where does it say in the Act, that any solvent person 'may' be declared bankrupt without any judge 'satisfying themselves' whether or not any debtor "is able to pay all their debts"?

I can't find this anywhere in it although the Insolvency Service has told me that it is irrelevant to the court what the debtors solvency status is at the time of making their order, which seems like simple dishonesty to me and, by definition is corrupt. How many judges are prosecuted for perverting the course of justice in this way, along with the court staff who aid and abet such corruption?

Perhaps the JSB needs to instruct courts to keep statistics of how many cases are decided without any hearing, and exact details of why, as the Minister for Justice doesn't seem to require this to be done. Only when that figure is zero can there be any hope of
confidence in the system being remotely just.

I would remind everyone of the Proclamation in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. "The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance", which no UK
Government since 1949 seems to have complied with.

I was never taught about my rights and it seem that neither are judges, nor do they seem to care about them. What about the JSB?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson End of copy.

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson

JSB Publications,

Thank you for your email of 13 June 2010. Mark Shore is currently on
annual leave, and we are unable to access his emails while he is away.
However, his email of 11 June addressed the points raised in yours of 28
April. If you remain unsatisfied after that internal review, the next
step would be to contact the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Andrea Dowsett.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Andrea Dowsett for JSB Publications,

I will still require a reply to my email of the 13 June from Mark Shore, as that was in response to his of the 11 June. I trust the ICO will take the delays and lack of replies into consideration when reviewing the case in due course.

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Dear Shore, Mark (DJO-JSB),

I have been expecting a response to my request for an internal review into the way my FOI request has been dealt with. That Internal Review is also well past its sell by date, so when, if ever, will I get any reply?

Most of the excuses given for not answering my questions are unsatisfactory in themselves, let alone compliant with Universal Human Rights. So perhaps the fault lies with individuals employed by the State, not just the defective legislation which they are all too happy to use if it benefits them.

If the JSB won't 'train' judges by instructing them to ignore UK Laws which violate Human Rights then who will? How can judges possibly be considered honest, or to have moral integrity, if they also violate human rights, even when the State Laws attempt to protect those rights and it is Judges who ignore those rights?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Shore, Mark \(DJO-JSB\),

I am out of the office on 20 August. Please contact Mark Knight (020 3334
0730) or Marie Rafter (020 3334 0728) if your message is urgent.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Shore, Mark \(DJO-JSB\),

Dear Mr Wilson,

I apologise for the delay in responding to your original email,
requiring your further email below.

The JSB's response of 8 April 2010 to your email of 24 March 2010 was
provided under the Freedom of Information Act and included the training
material made available to judges in relation to the sections of the
Insolvency Act you mentioned. I confirm that there is nothing further I
can add to that email as regards the training judges receive in that
area. However, your most recent email raises a number of additional
questions in relation to judicial training, which I will endeavour to
answer.

You ask how judges can make decisions without adhering to the correct
interpretation of the law and how training can be delivered without
instruction (questions 1, 2 & 3). The primary responsibility for keeping
themselves informed and up to date with legal developments lies with
judges (as with professional lawyers). However, the relevant
jurisdictional law provides the background for all JSB training and this
is highlighted at training events. I hope you will appreciate that
ultimately judges are required to make their own independent decisions
in accordance with statutory and case law, notably decisions of the
Court of Appeal. It follows that the JSB cannot train judges to arrive
at some form of 'correct' answer, because the facts of each case are
different and the judge can only make a judgment based on the evidence
presented in a particular case. The JSB would impinge on judicial
independence if it attempted to dictate or set a policy. Instead it
offers cautious guidance and thereby tries to encourage good practice
and consistency of approach.

With regard to what the law is trying to achieve (questions 4, 5 & 6), I
note that you have already been in touch with the Insolvency Service,
who monitor the operation of insolvency legislation and provide advice
to Ministers, officials and the public on insolvency policy. They remain
the best source of information on policy and can be contacted on
[email address].

If a person is dissatisfied with the way a judge has handled his case he
may either appeal or present a complaint to the Office of Judicial
Complaints, depending on the nature of the dissatisfaction. He would
also be well advised to seek assistance from a solicitor, a Law Centre
or the Citizens' Advice Bureau.

I hope that this is of some help.

Yours sincerely

Mark Shore

Mark Shore | Head of Corporate Services | Judicial Office for
England and Wales | Steel House | 11 Tothill Street | London SW1H 9LJ
| Telephone 020 3334 0729 | www.judiciary.gov.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Shore, Mark (DJO-JSB),

Yet again another lackey of the State is simply repeating the lies of the fundamentally biased and corrupt State.

Firstly, nothing that was included in the reply date the 8 April could be said to include anything approaching 'training material' in the common understanding of this expression. All it did was repeat some extracts which mentioned certain sections of the Insolvency Act, but covers nothing as to any legal principles, which should be behind judicial decisions. Surely,that is something which even judges need to be taught?

However, your current replies to my extra questions only seem to confirm that the JSB is failing to educate judges on what basic principles they need to adhere to in order to do their job correctly, because it is actually up to judges to keep themselves up to date with legislation and case law. Although you mention 'training events' which highlight these principles, I regret that reading between the lines, it seems likely to me that judges would consider these 'events' to be nothing more than a 'junket' away from the bench, rather than serious training, if there are no tests involved or accountability for their subsequent actions.

Perhaps I am just prejudiced because I have suffered from judicial incompetence, but I am clearly not alone in this if the number of complaints on this website are anything to go by.

However, you also say that "the JSB cannot train judges to arrive at some form of 'correct' answer, because the facts of each case are different and the judge can only make a judgement based on the evidence presented in a particular case", which is also not true from my own experience or that of others. In my case no judge has ever considered any relevant facts of the case, nor consequently upheld human rights law or the laws of 'natural justice' which I was told in April were at the heart of all judicial training. Where then is the evidence for that claim if you can produce no training manuals on it?

As for the suggestion that "The JSB would impinge on judicial independence if it attempted to dictate or set a policy", that makes no sense to me at all. The only policy I suggest they need to be trained in is that if they fail to give a hearing at all, then their decisions cannot stand, which is actually what it clearly states is the case in Halsbury's Laws of England & Wales Vol 8(2) paragraph 119 and note 1, when speaking of the second law of natural justice.

So if judges are not trained to think about 'natural justice', let alone human rights, or how to come to correct decisions, based on actual evidence then what are they taught? The answer seems to be nothing whatsoever and they can make it up as they go along.

My own interpretation of the above 'law' is that no appeal against such decisions are required either, as the fundamental right to a fair and impartial hearing has been denied, so nothing that follows such an 'act' by any judge is lawful, even under the HRA 1998, section 6 and Article 17 of the European Convention. So perhaps the JSB can answer that point and educate me as to where I am wrong in my thinking?

It seems from your replies that the JSB is too subservient to judges, who seem to think that everyone is beneath them, rather than equal under the law, as it should be, and that is why the JSB is afraid to teach them how to think, which is not the same as telling them what decisions to arrive at.

The myth that they consider the 'man on the Clapham Omnibus' opinion' of anything any more is long dead and was buried under several hundred feet of concrete when the Supreme Court arrived at their perverse decision in favour of the Banks v OFT (for consumers) on bank charges, last year without even referring it to the European Court for 'guidance' beforehand.

As for the Insolvency Service, they too operate under a corrupt regime and deny that judges could ever be wrong and that only another judge can put things right, by following the appeal route which is also wrong, if natural justice is denied in the first place. If I am wrong on this then perhaps the JSB can tell me what law or Universal Human Right states that anyone can be denied their basic rights just because a judge ignores them?

Isn't that what the Nazis did in the 1930's when they passed a law to deny Jews the right to own property and Judge's issued warrants to take it away from them? Isn't that the only grounds for a so called 'independent judiciary' i.e. they should never again be party to human rights violations in the name of the State, regardless of what State Law tells them to do?

See also Article 17 of the 1948 Universal Declaration on that same issue. Where has this been incorporated into UK law and what training on that have judges been given?

I submit however that this is exactly what the wrong interpretation of the Insolvency Act 1986 has led to in my case, and any others who were declared bankrupt on falsehoods, when they were in fact solvent at the time the decision was made and had already challenged the very claim on which the application was based.

As for the alternative State complaint mechanisms, they simply don't work as they don't want to deal with complaints about judges either, regardless of their titles.

Under Article 8 of the Universal Declaration and Article 13 of the European Convention, then any person whose rights are abused, by anyone at all, must have the right to just satisfaction. However, I trust that even the JSB can confirm that this right has been denied to everyone by the Human Rights Act 1998, from which it was excluded. How is that considered to be 'justice' in the UK or proper training of judges, if they are not trained to ignore such exclusions and uphold human rights under threat of instant dismissal if they fail to do so? Only then will we see justice prevail in the UK court system which is ancient and still Dickensian in its methods.

Finally, can you confirm that you have completed an Internal Review of this matter.

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Dear Shore, Mark (DJO-JSB),

It seems that I am still awaiting a response from you to my last email. So perhaps you can now fully answer this simple question whilst writing your reply.

If section 271(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 states that when dealing with any bankruptcy petition:-
"The court may dismiss a petition if the debtor has made an offer to secure or compound which has been unreasonably refused", or "if it is satisfied that the debtor is able to pay all his debts" and later that "in determining for the purposes of this subsection whether the debtor is able to pay all his debts, the court shall take into account his contingent and prospective liabilities", how can any court consider this as a discretionary obligation rather than a compulsory one?

It seems fairly obvious to me that the use of the word may in the first part cannot be separated from the words 'dismiss a petition', as that takes it out of context. Secondly, the use of the words 'shall take into account' appear to me to imply an obligation on the Court to review all the facts of the case, rather than consider one claimants desire to arbitrarily bankrupt another human being, thereby violating their rights.

Please therefore confirm, on behalf of the judicial studies board whether or not they agree with my interpretation, or provide an alternative argument to support any claims that 'discretion' can be applied in the negative. I.e 'may not dismiss any petition' against a solvent person, even without a fair hearing or assessment of their 'contingent liabilities.

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson

Dear Shore, Mark (DJO-JSB),

I regret that owing to persistent health concerns, and a lack of direct Internet access at home, I have been unable to keep tabs on all my irons in the fire recently. I note however that you have failed to reply to either of my last 2 emails.

I can only take this to be a deliberate attempt to ignore my questions in the hope that I will go away, but I will not. If you do not have the guts to tell the truth then please say so, or else refer the matters to the Information Commissioner yourself, I'm sure he'll support an excuse that I am being vexatious in persisting on knowing how my rights have been upheld, even though that is my right under Article 6 of the UN Resolution 53/144 of the 9th Dec 1998, which the Freedom of Information Act has resoundingly ignored.

I would attach a copy of it to this email if I could. The best I can do is to direct you to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ where you will find copies of all International Law documents published by the UN and links to every other UN document through that page too.

You will see clearly however, that the International Bill of Human Rights begins with the Universal Declaration of 1948, wherein Article 17(2) stated that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of their property. This has been ignored by the UK when making the Insolvency Act 1986, as it has been ignored by Mugabe in Zimbabwe when demolishing his citizens homes, or by Israel when they too demolish Palestinians' houses to make way for their illegal settlers or their illegal partition wall, also denounced by the UN in several resolutions.

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

JSB Publications,

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Wilson,

Your emails of 25th February and 1 March 2011 are both acknowledged.

In relation to the first email, the Judicial Studies Board is only
responsible for the area of judicial training. It is for Parliament to set
the framework for human rights law and the Courts to uphold it. The
Ministry of Justice continues to have policy responsibility for the Human
Rights Act on behalf of the Government.

The view of the JSB remains that there is nothing we can usefully add to
our previous responses regarding judicial training on human rights law or
insolvency law. In view of this, we are unable to correspond further with
you on these particular issues. However, should you have cause to write to
us concerning judicial training on a different subject matter, we will
endeavour to assist you further wherever possible.

| Judicial Office for England and Wales | Steel House | 11 Tothill
Street | London SW1H 9LJ | [1]www.judiciary.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/

Dear JSB Publications,

I was expecting a response from Mark Shore and it seems that this reply may not be from him at all. However, to answer the points made above I would say that the reply that "The Judicial Studies Board is only responsible for the area of judicial training" simply contradicts the reply I was given before which was that the Judicial Studies Board doesn't 'instruct judges' as to law at all. So what kind of training can they get without instruction?

On the second point that "It is for Parliament to set the framework for human rights law and the Courts to uphold it", this too is another State lie.

Human Rights law has been set out by the United Nations since 1948 under the heading of the "International Bill of Human Rights" which began with the Universal Declaration in Dec that year. However, every UK Government since Jan 1949, when the Prime Minister claimed that the Government would work towards complying with that fully, has since perverted the aims of that Declaration.

In 1976 when the first two International Covenants became legally binding on all UN Member States, the Law Lords threatened to put forward their own Bill of Rights, but the then Government put them off by claiming that we needed to debate this. Parliament still dithers about such a Bill of Rights today. So why have the Law Lords done nothing since then and why has the JSB not been instructing judges to follow the UN manual on International Human Rights since then either?

On following the link you provided to http://www.judiciary.gov.uk the first words I noticed are those in a quote by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge which state that:-
"To be the judges and magistrates ... we need to be intelligent, knowledgeable about the law, but more importantly perhaps, wise in the ways of the world, sensitive to others from different backgrounds to our own, fair and open-minded and balanced, independent in spirit, courageous to do what is right even when it will be unpopular: perhaps indeed most of all when it will be unpopular, whether with politicians, the executive, or the media".

How can they be intelligent and knowledgeable without proper training, particularly as regards Universal Human Rights, for who knows how long, if this manual has never been used by the JSB and judges were left to train themselves?

They can hardly be said to be open-minded and fair or courageous either, if they wear blinkers in every case and base their decision solely on parochial UK laws. This is directly applicable to the Insolvency Act because the UK consists of several nations, yet under universal human rights everyone is entitled to be treated equally before the law under Article 14 of the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political rights.

General Comment no.9 of 1998 (referring to an earlier comment in 1990) stated that "The central obligation in relation to the Covenant is for States parties to give effect to the rights recognized therein. By requiring Governments to do so “by all appropriate means”, the Covenant adopts a broad and flexible approach which enables the particularities of the legal and administrative systems of each State, as well as other relevant considerations, to be taken into account.".

That should have meant that regardless of the number of territories which the UK claims to control, the laws should be effectively equal in each territory and this has clearly never been the case in the UK.

General Comment no.13 by the Human Rights Committee in 1984 had this to say about the Administration of Justice in any country based on State reports to them:-

"The Committee notes that article 14 of the Covenant is of a complex nature and that different aspects of its provisions will need specific comments. All of these provisions are aimed at ensuring the proper administration of justice, and to this end uphold a series of individual rights such as equality before the courts and tribunals and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Not all reports provided details on the legislative or other measures adopted specifically to implement each of the provisions of article 14.

In general, the reports of States parties fail to recognize that article 14 applies not only to procedures for the determination of criminal charges against individuals but also to procedures to determine their rights and obligations in a suit at law. Laws and practices dealing with these matters vary widely from State to State. This diversity makes it all the more necessary for States parties to provide all relevant information and to explain in greater detail how the concepts of “criminal charge” and “rights and obligations in a suit at law” are interpreted in relation to their respective legal systems.".

How has the JSB or untrained judges, for the State, complied with that last concept of openness, by failing to answer a simple question about how anyone's right to not be arbitrarily deprived of their property, on the basis of an arbitrary 'bankruptcy level' (which has differed in Scotland for years) and their claims that Section 271(3) is irrelevant to the making of any bankruptcy order has been upheld by UK laws?

Do all judges believe that they can issue any judgement
against anyone, in direct violation of that Article 14 right and the only option the victim has is to 'appeal' to the same type of untrained, incompetent and therefore by definition, corrupt judges?

Is that truly how the JSB works whilst claiming to accept responsibility for 'judicial training'?

Yours sincerely,

J Wilson

Dear Judicial Studies Board,

I note you have not responded to my last contact of the 4 March 2011. Whilst I have excuses for being otherwise engaged I wonder what excuses you have. Please respond so that others can see the recalcitrance which I expect you believe I express is well founded, because the State is and has been corrupt since 1949, at least if not longer.

If the JSB is not a State body does it not count as "an organ of society" to which the United Nations Universal Declaration of 1948 directed these words?
"The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive....to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance".

How have any Judges ever acted upon that since 1949 or to this day, if they've not been trained to do so?

Yours faithfully,

J Wilson

JSB Publications,

Your email of 5 November 2011 is acknowledged. There is nothing the Judicial College can usefully add to our previous responses regarding judicial training on human rights.

| Judicial Office | Steel House | 11 Tothill Street | London SW1H 9LJ | www.judiciary.gov.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Liz Watson anodiad ()

In a word, the Insolvency Act 1986 does not work: because its a self-evident sham. It does nothing to protect the solvent and in a disturbing number of cases, it is being abused by thieves who seek to access control of a solvent person's estate in order to gain pecuniary advantage - without applying probity, there is no 'service' in Insolvency proceedings, becuase they are being inverted and widely misused as a back-door means of debt collection, frequently on non-existent "debt" allegations and little more.

Why are fraudsters abusing the insolvency process being given the same status as innocent victims of organised crime, and being treated as genuine?

Above all, It has little or no provision for detecting, preventing, or dealing with fraudulent 'bankruptcies' - it sanctions giving fraudsters purporting to be creditors the same status as honest creditors seeking restitution! - with no checks and balances or compliance in place to rout out the true from the false, nor separate the chaff from the wheat:
thus, criminals get to have a field day (as Eversheds have done in our case recently - but only to date, because it won't be permitted to last much longer), whilst innocent people seeking justice get no support.

For your urgent attention - please examine below
How the Insolvency Act works? - a Freedom of Information request to Judicial College

How the Insolvency Act works? - a Freedom of Information request to Judicia...
I have been unable to find any case law concerning the interpretation of section 271(3) of the 1986 Insolvency ...

Now hopefully once you've read this and studied the attachments, all can see how very easy it is for criminals, parading as court officers, to abuse the bankruptcy process for private criminal gain, using exempt status Solicitors (like Richard Pitt of Eversheds Cardiff) -
To conduct UNAUTHORISED regulated activity without a Licence to steal from victims and seize control of their assets using fraudulent means.....
Why are the Public tolerating this?
What has happened to The Golden Rule?

Even worse, the audacity of the petitioner (Richard Pitt, a solicitor and Partner at Eversheds Cardiff) involves further fraud as he has no locus to petition a Bankruptcy!
Eversheds Cardiff, (now T/a Eversheds-sutherland (Intl) LLP), who curiously have 'exempt status' with the FCA which they shouldn't have in the first place, according to the FCA are therefore debarred from engaging in regulated activity which is a criminal offence under Part 20 of FSMA 2012 and 2000!

So who's monitoring?

No one?
Lets examine a few facts...

Mrs Sarah Albon incredulously states in her letter to me of 10 October 2017 "....the court has made a valid bankruptcy order against you. ....As such, and I am aware the Official Receiver's office has explained this to you, it is incumbent upon you to cooperate fully with the official receiver at this time.
This fraud is being sanctioned under her watch. She is in a position of Authority - and she does not appear to have thought any of this through.

strong language, that - "incumbent" and "valid" - neither are true. Because we can't be compelled to comply with bullies who are using lies to bind us. Any more than a lie can be termed "valid". We are not slaves and they are not Masters to us. Why, then, is this master-slave relationship approach being adopted here?

An abuse of process is always maliciously motivated, it can't be otherwise - but why oh why are people in high office condoning this? Because it pays them good money? no excuse.
It begs the question in the Public interest - Why is there no policy to protect the innocent, and to protect and vindicate those people who are solvent but who have been unjustly and fraudulently declared 'insolvent' ?
In our case, it is a criminal masquerading as a 'court officer' (richard Pitt) that is making that false declaration.

The Offences
Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4.
Fraud by false representation (Section 2);
Fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4).
In each case:
the defendant's conduct must be dishonest;
his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another.
No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.
The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:
made a false representation
dishonestly
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.
Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)
The defendant:
failed to disclose information to another person
when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.
Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

Conclusion: Is there not a legal duty under the BSB / SRA Code of Conduct rules for a barrister and solicitor to conduct themselves with ethics, and not to mislead the Court?
yes, indeed.
Is there not a legal duty for all Court officers to disclose the debt which they are bringing Bankruptcy proceedings for? yes, of course, I hear you say.....
Without a proof of debt, what do they actually have?

Why are solvent people being "ordered" to do what they're told by corporate bullies who do not understand our rights under Common Law and where many of them appear to have taken leave of all Common sense?

Why are they getting away with casting burdens on innocent people which they do not have to bear themselves (and would not be willing to bear themselves) ?

Who amongst these court officers engaging in these practices and meting out these processes are acting in good conscience? What is qualifying them as being 'fit for purpose" ?

Why is the Government institution called the Insolvency SERVICE ? Its anything but a 'service'. The purpose of Bankruptcy is meant to shield and protect one from creditors, not to feed you to the lions - especially when you have no debt and are NOT insolvent!

The Law is being used against us, instead of to serve us - it is apparently being treated and twisted by bullies to seek to bind us instead of to liberate us from oppression and tyranny and tort.

In our own case, it's an obvious abuse of position for attempting asset-stripping on a non existent debt

A FEW FACTS ON OUR CASE:
1. We've had no disclosure of a debt
Therefore we cannot be adjudged bankrupt

2. The alleged 'judgment' was made in tort and in contempt of court, on an un-issued 'claim' which referred to 2 fraudulently opened bank accounts being allegedly 'in default';

3. In Law nothing exists, so there is nothing to appeal
On this basis we refuse to appeal the purported "Bankruptcies" which aren't worth the paper they're written on and would be nonsensical as otherwise it gives life to the lifeless,

4. but we are prepared to appeal the Chancery judge's refusal to HEAR our rescission application on the grounds of Fraud and the fact that there is no registered debt in existence. Chancery Judge Marcus Smith told me on 12/10/2017 "I can't hear you on anything to do with the case" - so what is the purpose of having courts? What happened to our rights to a fair hearing?

5. We therefore do not consent to these vexatious bankruptcy proceedings which are a nullity, and intend to stand our ground and make this Public - to show what is going on with our Government mis-governing us in favour of criminal activities for their commercial interests.

Also, its a bit ironic that:

1. The "bankruptcy orders" have been plucked from the air without any due process of Law nor anything to under-pin them, and we are being told we must respect them as "valid". This is an affront. It is like saying we must be allowed to cash a cheque that is not signed. Or to be given a University degree certificate without doing the 4 year course for it.

The "bankruptcy orders" can be disingenuously said to be every bit as valid as the fake bank accounts set up by dishonest senior employees within HBOS PLC - they have NO VALIDITY AT ALL. Nullity is the word.

2. We're Creditors of the SAME BANK whose two agents Gangar & White, went to prison for 'conspiracy to defraud and bribing a US official' in 2008, for $233 million stolen via fake bank accounts run by a shadow bank from 17 years ago, still untraced 17 years later....how can we be creditors and debtors to the same bank at the same time? the original debt by the Bank has still not been settled! This is because it was a shadow bank.

Those two accountants are still in prison now - why? Because they were unable to stump up the millions for the confiscation orders...

Why is that? Because the cabal who hired them (led by Fraser Mackay the ex-Head Auditor of HBOS, of 34 years standing at the Bank, and Director of the Private Banking Unit in Manchester), used an inside track or shadow bank run OFF LEDGER within the Private Banking Unit in Manchester under the big HBOS PLC name.
This, in turn, enabled them to get away with utilising false instruments (fake bank accounts, using non-existent sort codes and fraudulent account numbers, plucked from the air).

3. All the above has occurred on an unsealed and unissued claim for possession of our home on a mortgage we've never received!

See the Bank of Scotlands letter confirming they have no record of granting a mortgage: so who is telling the truth? Eversheds employee or the Bank of Scotland PLC which has an evident major problem with employee fraud?
(NB: the petitioner is Eversheds employee Richard Pitt and NOT Bank of Scotland PLC) - going by the form itself.

4. This is the Govt allowing and sanctioning criminal acts due to non-compliance with the Common Law of the people, it's giving shadow banking the same rights as regulated banking! WHY?

5. I also attach the shadow banks illegible purported "ledger" which has no named bank in it, produced in "evidence" of the alleged "debt" if you please!

The FCA told me that no one can enforce an unregustered and therefore, unregulated debt
But I'm being told the Insolvency Service's CEO that the Bankruptcy orders are valid!

6. We are Claimants in the High Court against HBOS PLC now T/a Bank of Scotland PLC since December 2008, so how can a lower court adjudge us 'bankrupt' on an un-issued claim, all made possible because of court officers (Messrs Pyle, Pitt and Mitchell) abusing their positions to twist and tamper with the Court records (eventually even destroying them to hide their criminal acts of deception and then "re-constructing" them according to what the RCJ has told us)?
and how can a Claimant in the High Court be turned in to a "defendant" in a lower court and their role thus be reversed without any disclosure of a legal mortgage or debt in 10 long years?

On the basis of the above, we do not consent to these "Bankruptcy proceedings" nor do we consent to the mindless "Insolvency laws" which are fatally flawed, are being mis-applied and mis-used, and w hich have emerged from the Corrupt EU which itself does not allow its own books to be audited and are reported they have not been signed off for some 20 years!

Reality Check: Has the EU had its accounts signed off? - BBC News
Has the EU had its accounts signed off?

Has the EU had its accounts signed off?
Leave campaigners claim the EU has not had its accounts signed off for 20 years. Are they right?

12 May 2016 - Leave campaigners claim the EU has not had its accounts signed off for 20 years. ... the
European Court of Auditors has not signed off its accounts for 20 years. ... but money that: "should
not have been paid out because it was not used in ... For comparison, the UK National Audit Office
says fraud across UK ...

Mrs Albon - the only cooperation I am obliged to give is under God's Law. Therefore, my message is this: if the Official Receiver investigates the matter under Section 289 and determines that I am 100% correct that :

* there is no registered debt
* there is no legal mortgage
* there is no liquidated debt
* there is no Cause of action
* We are not insolvent
* we are ready to settle any lawfully proven debt and that has always been the case
* there is no valid judgment or court order in the 9 years of County Court proceedings due to no issuance of any claim and therefore no jurisdiciton arising therefrom to make a single order;
* there is no basis in Law to have lawfully and legally adjudged me and my husband bankrupt
* we are therefore entitled to compensation for harassment,reckless negligence, intimidation and unjust discrimination with an apartheid system working contrary to the Courts Overriding Objectives and the Rule of Law - in favour of the 'rule of lawyers' and lawlessness.

See in the link below how Chapter 20 of the Insolvency act relating to notifiable offences appears to have been repealed - why ?
Section 9, however, states the Official Receiver has a Public duty to investigate the conduct and affairs of the matter imposed by section 289 of the Insolvency Act 1986 -
and we are 100% confident that once an investigation is competently and properly done, the Official Receiver will find there is no lawful or possible basis to continue with the Bankruptcy proceedings and will be obliged in Law to report them as an ABUSE OF PROCESS and refer the matter to the criminal Authorities under his or her duties under the Anti-MLRA 2002 as a money-laundering offence.

Dear insolvency practitioner: Chapter 20: Offences and prosecution
https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/......
Reporting of s.11 and s.13 CDDA offences - undischarged bankrupts and ... imposed by section 289 of the Insolvency Act 1986, he/she should notify the Official ...

How would any of you like it if this happened to you?

9. Official Receiver’s duty to investigate the conduct and affairs of bankrupts
Insolvency practitioners acting as trustee are reminded that the notes to form “IPROH” which is amongst the documents produced by the Official Receiver on the handover of the bankrupt’s estate, require that if the trustee becomes aware of any matters which may require investigation by the Official Receiver under his/her duties imposed by section 289 of the Insolvency Act 1986, he/she should notify the Official Receiver as soon as possible.
Bankruptcy restriction proceedings are a product of Official Receiver’s investigations and these must be commenced within 12 months of the bankruptcy order. It is possible that insolvency practitioners acting as trustee may discover conduct such as a failure to disclose assets or asset disposals which the Official Receiver may not have been aware of. Such conduct might form the basis of an application for a Bankruptcy Restriction Order and/or referral of a criminal offence to a relevant prosecuting authority and insolvency practitioners should notify the Official Receiver of it as soon as it is discovered rather than wait until their own enquiries or recovery action has been completed.
Any enquiries regarding this article should be directed towards Mark Danks, Authorisations: Bankruptcy, 5th Floor, The Balance, Pinfold Street, Sheffield S1 2GU, telephone: 0114 221 2744, email: mark.danks@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk
General enquiries may be directed by email to: AT.Bankruptcy@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

Once again, bear in mind that all of the above has been accomplished by qc Paul Mitchell acting in fraud in collusion with Richard Pitt of Eversheds and driven by HBOS ex-head Auditor and director of the Private banking unit, Fraser Mackay - using proceeds of crime from moneys misappropriated 17 years ago, in a self-evident conspiracy to steal. it is pure theft.

Yours, distraught
Liz Watson