Dear Ms Manson
Your ref: CBS/TS/SGM
On that post you will find references to two more responses that you got from other victims, plus a proposal for one on behalf of the collective “we”. For we are a network of individuals who have helped each other voluntarily for many years. In that process we have gathered subject matter expertise that no employee or civil servant could ever acquire.
Given your knowledge in the Technical Section, we now have a number of questions:
- Our letter was also hand delivered to the Secretary of State. Can you confirm that you had a discussion with him about your response on his behalf?
- Which other Ministers have you made aware of the serious organised crime that is going on under the umbrella of ‘bankruptcy’, i.e. stealing people’s assets who were never insolvent in the first place?
- If you have not made other Ministers aware yet, would you please confirm that you will have done so, or if not why not?
- Which authorities have you informed under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) of the serious crime that is taking place under the guise of making solvent people bankrupt fraudulently?
- Can you please confirm whether Official Receivers and Trustees are officers of the Court?
- If they are Officers of the Court, do they have a duty to inform the Court and the Bankrupt of anything for as well as against the Bankrupt?
- If the Court wrongly makes a SOLVENT person bankrupt, does the Official Receiver and / or Trustee have a duty to inform the Court and the Bankrupt?
Please read the attached letter from Baker Tilly that shows “legal costs” covering nearly all of the proceeds of the sales of illegally acquired homes, for debts that were non-existing.
The Police protecting bailiffs rather than home owners has been well documented on camera in these circumstances:
- Mr & Mrs Cullinane – 1989, just to illustrate how long these dramas have been going on for; see http://www.fame97.human-rights.org/Cullin1.pdf
- Ms Paulette Cooper – 2010, one of the 4 cases you are now familiar with; see http://bit.ly/cVdB3p
- Mr Raymond Fox – 2010, another of the 4 cases you know if you have studied the evidence we provided; see http://bit.ly/afCee0
We are not operating in an academic environment where we take samples. We are gathering documents of victims to establish the common patterns of wrong-doings, whether they are attributable to accountants, solicitors, barristers, judges, administrative procedures, or even administrative staff such as yourself, and will gladly present them to you and your colleagues. The Secretary of State is extremely well aware of some of the worst cases.
Meanwhile, I look forward to your comments.
Blogging about Financial Exploitation and Legal Oppression:
On behalf of Voters and Taxpayers:
— Public Debts with Vested Interest Payments – a 300-year old mechanism with seriously oppressive long term effects
— Enforcement of Bank of England Act 1694, an Early Day Motion for grouping cases of oppression, to change the law > 11,000 views
Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies, advocating Economic Democracy through Freedom from National Debt
Buschower Dorfstr. 16 – 14715 Märkisch Luch – Brandenburg
T: 0049 33876 90166 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0049 33876 90166 end_of_the_skype_highlighting – M: 07968 039 141
Dear Ms McNeill,
Thank you for your email of 19 August.
I understand that your letter to Dr Cable of 26 May was accepted by the Ministerial Correspondence Unit at BIS. You did not receive a reply and were asked to re-submit the letter. I understand that it was the re-submitted letter which was passed to The Insolvency Service for reply. I am sure you will appreciate that the Secretary of State daily receives a considerable amount of correspondence. It is, therefore, the usual practice of the Ministerial Correspondence Unit to ask officials within the Department or its Agencies to assist the Secretary of State by replying on his behalf to issues which arise within their remit.
In response to the questions raised in your email:-
- I have not discussed my response to your letter with Dr Cable.
- Your assertion that serious organised crime is going on under the umbrella of ‘bankruptcy’ is not evidenced nor accepted by The Insolvency Service. I have, therefore, had no occasion to raise this as an issue with other Ministers.See (2).
- Your assertion that serious crime is taking place under the guise of making solvent people bankrupt fraudulently is not evidenced nor accepted by The Insolvency Service. I have, therefore, had no occasion to make any report to any agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- I confirm that official receivers and trustees in bankruptcy are officers of the court.
- An officer of the court is, as I understand it, any appointed official of the court system with an obligation to ensure the effective operation of the judicial system. As an officer of the court the official receiver and the trustee in bankruptcy have a duty to carry out their statutory functions under the provisions of the insolvency legislation. Neither the official receiver nor the trustee in bankruptcy acts as an advocate for either the bankrupt or any individual creditor. The official receiver and trustee in bankruptcy reports to the court as requested by the court or required to by the provisions of the legislation. As officers of the court they are obliged to submit reports which are truthful and accurate on matters which are within their knowledge. Under section 375 of the Insolvency Act 1986 the courts have the power to review, rescind or vary any order made in the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction and, as with all other legal process, a bankruptcy order may be subject to appeal.
- The Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a creditor may petition the court for a bankruptcy order in respect of one or more debts owed by the debtor where the debt, or the aggregate amount of the debts, is equal to or exceeds the bankruptcy level (currently £750). The debt must be for a liquidated sum and it must appear to the court that the debtor appears either to be unable to pay or have no reasonable prospect of paying the debt.
The definition of “inability to pay” is set out in section 268 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (reproduced below for information). The court will make a bankruptcy order where the criteria are fulfilled and this may include a small percentage of individuals who won’t pay as opposed to can’t pay or whom, whilst solvent on paper, are illiquid and can’t pay their debts. In this way it is possible for an individual who is solvent to be subject to a bankruptcy order but I don’t agree that subsequently establishing an individual is solvent means the court was wrong to make the bankruptcy order within the scope of the legislation. Generally speaking where an individual is solvent the bankruptcy order will subsequently be annulled on the grounds that the debts and costs of the proceedings have been paid in full.
Shona Manson | Technical Section | The Insolvency Service | 8 email@example.com |
* 3rd Floor, Zone B, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B 3QW| www.insolvency.gov.uk
The Insolvency Act 1986
s.268 Definition of “inability to pay”, etc.; the statutory demand
(1) [Interpretation of s.267(2)(c)] For the purposes of section 267(2)(c), the debtor appears to be unable to pay a debt if, but only if, the debt is payable immediately and either-
(a) the petitioning creditor to whom the debt is owed has served on the debtor a demand (known as “the statutory demand”) in the prescribed form requiring him to pay the debt or to secure or compound for it to the satisfaction of the creditor, at least 3 weeks have elapsed since the demand was served and the demand has been neither complied with nor set aside in accordance with the rules, or
(b) execution or other process issued in respect of the debt on a judgment or order of any court in favour of the petitioning creditor, or one or more of the petitioning creditors to whom the debt is owed, has been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.
(2) [Further interpretation] For the purposes of section 267(2)(c) the debtor appears to have no reasonable prospect of being able to pay a debt if, but only if, the debt is not immediately payable and-
(a) the petitioning creditor to whom it is owed has served on the debtor a demand (also known as “the statutory demand”) in the prescribed form requiring him to establish to the satisfaction of the creditor that there is a reasonable prospect that the debtor will be able to pay the debt when it falls due,
(b) at least 3 weeks have elapsed since the demand was served, and
(c) the demand has been neither complied with nor set aside in accordance with the rules