Open Letter to Dr. Vincent Cable MP

When there is a new government, there is new hope.  This hope extends to Dr. Vincent Cable MP who has always been supportive of many victims of the financial, legal and judiciary system.

Today, one of these ‘victims turned starfighters’, Mr Gedaljahu Ebert, handed this Open Letter to Dr. Vincent Cable.

Please click on the image to open the document.
Open Letter to The Rt Hon Dr. Vincent CableIn his new responsibility as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade, we believe Dr. Cable to be responsible for the Insolvency Register.

This Register contains information that turns out to be false, as it has been obtained by fraudulent processes and not by adhering to the Rule of Law.

Page 1 of documentary evidence of four cases
As documentary evidence, we have enclosed the information about four individuals.

Here’s the answer we received from the Insolvency Service on his behalf.


10 responses to “Open Letter to Dr. Vincent Cable MP

  1. Iwould like to add the names of two other people who have suffered through being wrongly bankrupted.

    Doctor Sheida Oraki, who Vince Cable is aware of and has lent support to,


    Former Pig Farmer, Roger Jones, of Banbury who has suffered horrendously over the years through being bankrupted by fraudulent means.

    Roger has had a factual booklet of his sorry experiences written and published by the late Simon Regan and Roger can be contacted at

    I had another friend, Dennis Marron, of Tyersal in Bradford who suffered bankruptcy through the wrongful actions of others, but there is no point in citing Dennis’s case since the stress and trauma which he suffered eventually killed him.
    He left behind a fantastic wife in the shape of Jean who, to no avail, worked all hours to try to save their home from their oppressors.

    Colin Peters

  2. Pingback: The Insolvency Service responds on behalf of V. Cable « Enforcement of Bank of England Act 1694

  3. (This has been emailed to Shona Manson)

    OPEN LETTER – header “Is the Insolvency Service a threat to the Solvent ?”

    FAO: Ms Shona Manson
    Technical Department – Insolvency Service

    Dear Miss Manson,

    Is the Insolvency Service no longer fit for its purpose ?

    I am writing to you in the Public Interest with regards to your letter of 22 July 2010 to Ms Sabine McNeill. It is difficult to comprehend why Rt. Hon Vince Cable would have “passed” the important letter with supporting evidence, to you to reply, given it was personally addressed to him and apparently the letter ‘went missing’ because it was intercepted by yourself. Fortunately, I have noted that Dr. Vince Cable is a Minister with a conscience, and he takes pride in raising standards and creating accountability from those who are meant to be acting in the Public Interest – something that is clearly lacking with the Insolvency Service: Dr. Cable’s arrival on the scene as being the responsible Minister for the I.S. has not come a minute too soon! Dr. Cable advised me that “he had not seen” Sabine’s letter to which you have responded: I will ensure that Sabine’s letter and contents are brought to his personal attention.

    It is my earnest submission that you have demonstrated many times that you are not a suitable person to be “briefing Ministers on Insolvency case administration issues” particularly as our research shows that 98% of all liquidations and bankruptcies brought through the I.S. are provably NOT “insolvent”. It follows, there must be something seriously awry with your “Technical services” department – which I understand you are running?

    There are two particular things that arrested my attention in your letter, and I would appreciate your cooperation to provide me with the necessary evidence that substantiates what you have written:-

    1. You wrote that in the cases of Mr. Fabb, Ms Cooper and Mr. Fox that “the official receivers, as trustees of the bankruptcy estates, made application to the Secretary of State for licensed I.P.’s to replace them in office.” Please send me a copy of the Application referred to, which was made to the Secretary of State, to substantiate what you say.

    2. You also made reference to: “The appointments were made by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provision of Section 296 of the Insolvency Act 1986.”
    Please will you provide evidence of those applications allegedly made to the Secretary of State, along with proof of the valid appointments, themselves in accordance with the provision of Section 296 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which is pasted below for convenient reference), to substantiate what you say. Note: as previously notified to you, a 3rd party substitute signatory is NOT a valid appointment, in law ! The Secretary of State is signing on behalf of HM The Queen and is an authorised Minister, not a ‘department’ which can not, therefore, use substitute signatories on an ad hoc basis. You are not at liberty to continue with lawless, arbitrary, and sloppy standards which have a life-changing detrimental impact on innocent people. If you can not substantiate the above, please retract your statement, in writing.

    You seem to have got your wires crossed where you write, on the one hand: “Whilst the Official receiver has an obligation to investigate the conduct of the bankrupt and to establish the cause of failure,” you then contradict yourself by saying “… the official receiver has no obligation to investigate and check the validity of a debt which has already been established to the satisfaction of the court” – this does not stack up ! It stands to reason that no official receiver nor court can establish whether a debt is ‘valid’, without investigation and without evidence! Note, in particular, Section 289(1).

    With respect to Mr. G. Ebert’s case, the Public concesus appears to be that we do not see any justice nor justification to maliciously label him as “a vexatious litigant” given he is provably a victim of Insolvency Fraud. The Insolvency Service and HM Courts have done him an enormous wrong, and are to be held to account until that wrong (tort) is corrected and every last drop of compensation, paid in FULL. He has every right to feel outraged, as would you if you were in his position with the same treatment meted out to you. But this justified response does not make him “vexatious” by any thinking person’s standards. I have also noticed your apparent aberration in failing to mention that the Financial Ombudsman Service made a ruling that you had falsified certain information with regards to his case, which both the Courts and the Insolvency Service have refused to date, to be accountable for: ever the crux.

    Last but not least, you appear to have completely overlooked the problem that keeps occurring at the administrative level in HM Courts: namely, that HM’s Court seal is being wrongly (or fraudulently?) applied to Bankruptcy Petitions which are non-compliant with the Law and the 1986 Insolvency Act, which have no supporting evidence and no supporting Affidavit.

    The Insolvency Service cannot serve the Public if it continues to conduct itself without integrity. Nor can any party speak on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as you have attempted to do. This is being copied to Rt. Hon. Vince Cable, and to his leading researcher, Ms Pippa Morgan for their kind attention.

    Yours sincerely,

    Elizabeth Watson
    CEO – Discoveries International Limited
    Founder – One Voice Action Group

    [F1289Investigatory duties of official receiver
    (1)The official receiver shall—
    (a)investigate the conduct and affairs of each bankrupt (including his conduct and affairs before the making of the bankruptcy order), and
    (b)make such report (if any) to the court as the official receiver thinks fit.
    (2)Subsection (1) shall not apply to a case in which the official receiver thinks an investigation under that subsection unnecessary.
    (3)Where a bankrupt makes an application for discharge under section 280—
    (a)the official receiver shall make a report to the court about such matters as may be prescribed, and
    (b)the court shall consider the report before determining the application.
    (4)A report by the official receiver under this section shall in any proceedings be prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it.]

    296Appointment of trustee by Secretary of State.
    (1)At any time when the official receiver is the trustee of a bankrupt’s estate by virtue of any provision of this Chapter (other than section 297(1) below) he may apply to the Secretary of State for the appointment of a person as trustee instead of the official receiver.
    (2)On an application under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall either make an appointment or decline to make one.
    (3)Such an application may be made notwithstanding that the Secretary of State has declined to make an appointment either on a previous application under subsection (1) or on a reference under section 295 or under section 300(4) below.
    (4)Where the trustee of a bankrupt’s estate has been appointed by the Secretary of State (whether under this section or otherwise), the trustee shall give notice to the bankrupt’s creditors of his appointment or, if the court so allows, shall advertise his appointment in accordance with the court’s directions.
    (5)In that notice or advertisement the trustee shall—
    (a)state whether he proposes to summon a general meeting of the bankrupt’s creditors for the purpose of establishing a creditor’s committee under section 301, and
    (b)if he does not propose to summon such a meeting, set out the power of the creditors under this Part to require him to summon one.

    • Interesting, that you take the liberty to write on my behalf, Liz, especially as you write that a 3rd party substitute signatory is not a valid appointment in law!

      I should add: a system of employees who are being paid by Dishonest Money can hardly be expected to act as if Honest Money were in place. Everybody just does their “best” to keep their job. Unfortunately, that is NOT in the public interest.

      And the whole system is always beyond everybody’s remit… Nobody takes responsibility, nobody is accountable. Everybody passes the buck.

      I don’t think it is necessary to accuse Shona of having intercepted our letter though.

      It is also not appropriate that you accuse her of writing on behalf of the Secretary of State. Vince said to one of our colleagues that he’d pass our letter on to the Insolvency Service. That was a third copy though.

      However, I am sure that your initiative adds to the thinking of everybody who has been wronged so badly, as they dare to come out of the woodworks, thanks to the courage that grew out of the financial injustice, human humiliation and emotional torture of Mr. Ebert.

      • To be clear, I am not writing on your behalf, Sabine, I am writing on behalf of the Public Interest which the 4 case examples you sent are a snapshot view. Please note, I am not a “liberty taker” as you aver. You posted the letter on your website in the Public domain, and given I have direct dealings with Shona Manson myself it is appropriate to address her ‘Public letter’ on the major issues raised that I am also dealing with on behalf of the Public Interest. I hope this clarifies the position ?

        The fact that a 3rd party can not substitute the Secretary of State’s signature in Law is a critical issue here (and one that is being widely abused by the I.S.), and I believe your opening remark is therefore misguided.

        I have David Chapman, Director of the Insolvency Service for the UK, saying (on tape) “we like to be accountable for any errors we make” (paraphrased) so the opportunity is clear that making these people accountable is a major Public Interest issue. Shona Manson seems to be “running the show” and “wearing the trousers”, however, on behalf of the two top figureheads (Stephen Speed and David Chapman) within the I.S.

        As to you saying “I don’t think it is necessary to accuse Shona of having intercepted our letter”, I remind you that your own posting “Letter gone missing from the Ministerial box” gave the same accusation but in a veiled way – and now that Shona Manson has ‘owned up’ to being the interceptor, I do not see what your issue is.

        Finally, I am astonished that you say “It is not appropriate that you accuse her of writing on behalf of the Secretary of State” – ahem ! These are her OWN words. I respectfully invite you to go back and re-read her letter, particularly the final sentence: where she is imposing her “belief” that the Secretary of State can not assist you further”.

        Thank you.

  4. I would add this excellent quote from Prem Sikka & his colleagues report “Insolvent Abuse”…. questioning whether ‘fit for the purpose’ springs to mind

    “Insolvency Practitioners have overheads and aspirations like every other business. Consequently, they need a constant supply of new clients”. In big firms, managers are set targets for generating fees and income. Their salaries and promotion are linked to their performance (Hanlon, 1994). This invariably generates pressures to place sound businesses into receivership.”

  5. Pingback: Critique of the Insolvency Services « Enforcement of Bank of England Act 1694

  6. Pingback: UK State kidnapping published by Belgian journalist | Centurean2′s Weblog

  7. Pingback: In Support of Victims of Financial Exploitation and Legal Oppression - Latest News

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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