Our Response and Her Reply

Dear Ms Manson

Your ref: CBS/TS/SGM

Many thanks indeed for your response to our letter that I published here. See http://bit.ly/d6RowM

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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. If you have not made other Ministers aware yet, would you please confirm that you will have done so, or if not why not?
  4. 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?
  5. Can you please confirm whether Official Receivers and Trustees are officers of the Court?
  6. 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?
  7. 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.

Your recommendations may be well intended, but the reality of the Police not taking any interest is reflected in Early Day Motion 516 on Reporting of Fraud. See http://bit.ly/cWWRPn

The Police protecting bailiffs rather than home owners has been well documented on camera in these circumstances:

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.

If you want real life examples, you are welcome to meet the people behind the cases listed on Grouping Cases to Enforce the Act. See http://bit.ly/9Q4kCF.

Meanwhile, I look forward to your comments.

Yours sincerely,



Blogging about Financial Exploitation and Legal Oppression:

Victims Unite!

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

Her reply:

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:-

  1. I have not discussed my response to your letter with Dr Cable.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. I confirm that official receivers and trustees in bankruptcy are officers of the court.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

Yours sincerely,

Shona Manson

Shona Manson | Technical Section | The Insolvency Service | 8 shona.manson@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk |

* 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

5 responses to “Our Response and Her Reply

  1. Pingback: Correspondence with Shona Manson, Insolvency Service « Enforcement of Bank of England Act 1694

  2. This reply from Shona Manson is typical Ministerial dishonesty! The authorities are only interested in
    “known crime”. That means it only recognises crimes
    it chooses to. If for instance Mr.Ebert was violently assualted, it would not be recognised as a crime because
    Mr.Ebert is a Sectn.42 vexatious litigant. He does not exist
    concerning justice, but he does exist for oppression & torture.

    Please ask Shona Manson how come the Hearing
    in Southwark Crown Court Aug. 2008, before Recorder Brigden has disappeared from HMRC Records?

    For sure this hearing took place because I was there, sitting next to Dr.Oraki.

    We are secretly enslaved in Britain. Government Ministers’
    mail is intercepted by the government’s correspondance units (as confirmed by Shona Manson). The Ministers are
    told by civil servants what they need to know!

    There is no Democracy and no commitment to ECHR. That is why Article 1 Human Rights act is missing. As slaves we don’t have any human rights.

  3. VeraMaureen Jenner

    The plot thickens as it becomes more and more obvious, official skulduggery exists!

    I am sure many of us have concluded; members of the Government are, like HM the Queen, only shown on a ‘need to know’ basis. Too many letters/documents and the facts they contain, are first read by bureaucratic civil servants, who are very powerful and anything but servants.

    They take it upon themselves to filter the contents, so only that which they deem suitable for the tender eyes of those in whom we have, mistakenly it seems, placed our trust, is allowed to be read.

    I reluctantly came to this conclusion only recently, about five years ago, having sifted through the official, legal paperwork belonging to a lady in her mid seventies, living in Wales, who has fought legal and judicial injustice and corruption for twenty years.

    First cheated by a ‘cow-boy’ builder; advised by a corrupt lawyer to take legal proceedings; ill served by a novice barrister who failed to do his homework and who ultimately colluded with the opposition to cut a deal so the ‘cow-boy’ and his very experienced team (now both judges) won the case and all costs were awarded against the plaintiff who, though she had been awarded Legal Aid, and contrary to Section 17 of the Legal Aid rules, was forced to sell her home to meet the costs.

    The evidence is apparent in the endless correspondence that took a naive woman, with little knowledge or experience of the law, on a twenty year long trek to prove the barrister cheated on her. During these years, she gained a formidable wealth of legal experience, a mountain of paperwork – but no justice.

    In the correspondence there is an email in which the said barrister, now with more than twenty years experience, threatens to bring the same retribution upon the plaintiff and her MP, writing on her behalf, as he had brought upon a solicitor who was his mistress.

    This solicitor realised the full extent of his power and his duplicitous behaviour, when she discovered the barrister, a married man with three children, had billed her for the nights he had slept in her bed while supposedly fighting a case on her behalf. This lawyer was subsequently struck off and made bankrupt while the perpetrator of the evil walked free and prospers still under the protection of his legal peers; secure in the knowledge, he is untouchable – unless, one day, justice is done and seen to be done.

    • What a remarkable story and insight into those who administer, supposedly, the Rule of Law!!!

      There is currently one “super victim”, Maurice Kirk, in Cardiff County Court. He challenges the South Wales Police who colludes big time.

      And yet, even he believes in the Rule of Law ultimatelyto prevail. But it takes some person and some personality to fight what he’s been fighting since 1977.

      More on http://mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com

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

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