Shona Manson’s response to my invitation to our meeting

This is what I wrote to Stephen Speed, the Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr Speed

This is to invite you or someone else in your department to a meeting that will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, between 2 and 4 in Committee Room 16 of the House of Commons. Whilst I don’t expect you to attend at such short notice, I thought you might want to send Shona Manson whom we’ve been in touch with, or somebody else we can work with.

My main reason for inviting you is your stance on punishing dishonesty and other unethical behaviour. To give you a feel for what to expect, I attach three documents pertaining to the meeting as well as the most scandalous bankruptcy we are aware of: Mr David Fabb. One of the judges involved said: “This bankruptcy order ought not have been made. But I am using my “judicial discretion” not to annul it.” How is that supposed to increase our confidence in your system and procedures, I wonder?

Our group has accumulated a vast amount of evidence and knowledge about slippages in the Courts that your Service seems to miss, when Bankruptcy Orders are issued based on false documents, forms and evidence.

And while I appreciate that you don’t deal with individual cases, we have accumulated summaries of many to demonstrate what we know. It would therefore help if you were to support us in our efforts to annul bankruptcy orders that we found to be legally invalid and thus null and void.

Dr Vincent Cable is quite aware of our group efforts. Hence I would appreciate your collaboration.

With many thanks in advance,

Sabine K McNeill
_________________

And here’s the answer that I got:

Dear Ms McNeill,

Thank you for your invitation of 24 January. Mr Speed has asked me to reply on his behalf, I apologise that I did not have an opportunity to do so in advance of the meeting last week.

The role of The Insolvency Service is to administer insolvent estates following orders of the court. Concerns members of the Forum have about the Court Service or the actions of the Judiciary are a matter for the Ministry of Justice and not The Insolvency Service.

Official receivers have neither the authority nor the resources to investigate or challenge documentation which has been considered by the court. If you have the evidence that bankruptcy orders were made on false documentation, forms and evidence then the correct route is for the individual to ask the court to annul the bankruptcy order. This is a matter between the individual, the petitioning creditor and the court.

There is an established review and appeal process for individuals who wish to challenge the findings of the court. Any party to proceedings who believes a judge has incorrectly applied the law or erred in the exercise of his / her discretion has a right of appeal to a higher court.

Yours sincerely,

Shona Manson

About these ads

11 thoughts on “Shona Manson’s response to my invitation to our meeting

  1. OMG!
    What kind of reply is that! The question that needs to be asked is: why are insolvencey practitioners putting false documents before the court? It is not a judicial procedure; it is an administrative procedure.

  2. A typical reply from government departments and their cronies. I have read umpteen of these. What it really means is “I’m not going to meet you face to face, because I know you are correct and, the FACTS of the case also state that. Therefore, I feel it is better to reply with a pack of lies from my IVORY TOWER, where I know you can NEVER get at me and, prove me to be the liar I know I am.”

    If you do get the chance to meet them face to face, they will not answer questions directly, they will give a written reply, which of course will be just another pack of lies, believe me I have had meetings with the MoD(UK) and, they come out later with the most amazing lies, in written replies, because they are fully aware you will never get legal advice to challenge it, or they would most certainly noy put such rubbish on paper. They even refused to clarify a point in a court verdict, in which they won, by illegal means. Then in a written reply, to escape having to explain, openly say the judgment had got nothing to with the case I took.

    YOU ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHOSE ONLY QUALIFICATION FOR THJE JOB, IS THAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO LIE ETERNALLY.

  3. Dear Michael

    I fear you’re right on many accounts. I just look at this strange and kafkaesque phenomenon as a spiritual challenge. Everybody has a heart, a mind and hands that type. Some connect them better than others…

    And we might as well TRY to wake up to the voices in their hearts. We might as well give them the CHANCE to keep face.

    There is one lady who even believes that they are WANTING to be stopped in their wrongdoings.

    So let’s not give in or up in opening their eyes. Who knows what may follow!…

    • Dear Sabine,
      The problems you have to face in any kind of negotiations with them, is the FACT they know they are totally protected by anything but EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. I have personally had a lot of experience of meeting them FACE TO FACE and through letters, because I was a government employee. They never answered questions in meetings on the spot, even though a contract of employment was on the table.
      I think as a person with a business yourself, you will understand with shock, the following quote from a LIAR named Lt. Col. Langford the head of PERSONNEL. A question was put to him about a point in the Contract.
      His reply was quote:
      I believe the basis of your question is more along the lines of why these figures were chosen to be included in the Tariff rather than what the Tariff actually says. WHY IT WAS ORIGINALLY INCLUDED WILL ONLY BE KNOWN TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO REPRESENTED THE NEGOTIATING PARTNERS AT THE TIME. At this
      moment in time the only important factor is that those currently responsible for amendments, such
      as myself, are of the opinion that the 183/200 system meets our current requirernents. We therefore see no need to renegotiate it.

      As you have read, they openly admit they do not know what the Contract means because it came into force on 1st January 1967.
      What employer could make a statement like that?
      Unless of course, they knew there could never be a challenge to this statement.
      I have lots more of these lies and threats, from politicians and government employees, civilian and military.
      I call Langford a LIAR because I have a litany of lies from him infact he never told the truth.

  4. Regarding Mike’s comments; yes as I experienced personally myself, they will give a pack of lies, and in doing so, others will believe them, as against the truth of events you, I, or other decent wronged Victims try to present and it is that barrier we have to knock down even if by force…surely?

    And regarding Norma’s comments above;… the reply from Shona Mason gave is a reply she knew even if she did lie she knows she can get away with it, because:- She’s protected by the stinking essence of “Subsidiarity”, engulfing Articles 51 to Articles 54 of The EU Conventions on Democratic Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, drawn -up (in the UK,) in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which remains ongoing into the present Lisbon Treaty, if you care to read-up on these my dear..

    Kind regards to both Mike and Norma.. Stan Embling

  5. Why do these people lie to us as a standard procedure?

    The answer is simple, they are instructed to lie, frustrate,
    obfuscate, torment, and torture via psycho. degrading treatment all honest decent citizens that prove troublesome to authority (we are regarded as non-compliant) for not accepting being a victim of thefts & frauds by HM friends & associates.

    I informed our meeting Committee Room 16 25th Jan 11 that I had attended a high security secret police station in Manchester. The Govnt. is setting up the National Fraud Agency, and we were being asked about our experiences and knowledge of white-collar frauds to assist this new agency.

    The meeting got very heated when it was made clear this agency would not start for another 10 years! I thought this was to allow senior judges like Master of the Rolls Neuberger to die of old age and save the government embarrassment, as most senior judges are concealing serious frauds and even benefitting from them.

    I now realize MY ERROR: it is the VICTIMS the government wants to die over the next 10 years, because the government is liable through gross negligence for the VICTIMS losses due to the facilitating of these frauds through the Insolvency Service, Land Registry, Corrupt Courts & Judges.

    This graveyard policy was used in the Equitable Life debacle over 3,000 people a week were dying, well over 100,000 have died without obtaining 1 penny compansation, and even the survivers are only getting a fraction of their losses due to Govnt. negligence!

    That is why we are lied to time after time after time. It is Govnt policy and it is contempt of parliamentary democracy & treason on the British Citizen now European!

    Our answer will only come from Europe not this rotten Country’s Govnt.

  6. I am inclined to agree with Stanley. So fer as Equitable Life was involved they gave the job to an emminent Lord Justice, who is really a dishonest judge, and such is his dishonesty that it would be an affront to even the most crimnal minds. At least the criminal physcopaths put very high caliblre effort in their enterprises.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s