FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT ’ VITIATES ALL JUDGMENT, CONTRACTS ...tgproperties.co.uk/tgp/files/AAB_Introduction_File... · ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ VITIATES ALL JUDGMENT, CONTRACTS

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ VITIATES ALL JUDGMENT, CONTRACTS AND ALL TRANSACTIONS WHATSOEVER as judged by eight L

([2003] UKHL 6, paragraph 77, “….the action is based on the allegation of fraud, and no subtlety of language, no craft or machinery in the form of contract, can estop a person who complains that he has been defrauded from having that question of fact submitted to a jury.” At paragraph 78, Lord Loreburn LC said, “I will not say a man himself innocent may not under any circumstances, however peculiar, guard himself by apt and express clauses from liability for the fraud of his own agents.”

The priority of applications is governed by Rule 55 of the Land Registration Rules 2003. This means that each application must be dealt with in the order it was received. So if the earlier' application is being held up by court proceedings as was in this case, the later applications cannot be processed until the initial court proceedings have been concluded. Flaunting Rule 55 carries a five years sentence and yet despite this rule being publically and openly flaunted by many ‘professionals’, not a single person has been charged as yet. Why? Why Not?

File 2A

Leading Case Testing The Land Registration Act 2002 UK’s Cabinet Ministers & Authorities Aiding & Abetting Criminal Banks To Rob The Citizens Of UK

Introduction To Treason

‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ Trevor Guy v Regina Final 40 Days Notice To Reinstate Mr. Guy As Registered Owner Before We Press Charges 25th of May 2017

Mr Trevor Guy on 07805 939 873 Email [email protected] www.tgproperties.co.uk Download All Files www.dropbox.com Sign in Email [email protected] Password bismillah1

Or Go to www.yahoo.co.uk Sign In Email [email protected] Password bismillah1

All Files Have Been Created By The White Knights Consortium Mr. Trevor Guy Has No Responsibility Whatsoever In The Creation Or Distribution Of These Files & Information Contained Within

The White Knights Consortium Takes Full Responsibility & Stand By On Each & Every Word We Have Written & Explicitly Exposed The White Knights Consortium gives full open permission for Mr. Guy, the authorities and the media outlets to use this material

All Filming and Books Rights Are Retained. We Are Interested In Hearing From All Interested Film & Book Producers

1

UK’s Cabinet Ministers & Authorities Aiding & Abetting The Criminal Banks To Rob Citizens Of The UK

“Fraus Omnia Corrumpit” Vitiates All Judgments, Contracts And All Transactions Whatsoever. Criminal Charges Will Be Raised Against Authorities Who Fail To Act As No One/Organisation Is Above The Law!

Fraud Is Never Time Barred. Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied. Guy With No Law.

Index Description Pages Cover. 1 Index. 2 - 3 Letter Putting Her Majesty, the Queen (As Head Of The State) On 40 Days Notice. 4 – 5 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Introduction To Treason (Trevor Guy v Regina). 6 Barclays’, Lloyds, HBOS, KPMG, DLA & Linklaters World Control Blueprint. 7 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On All ‘Protectors’ & All Authorities Ignoring +£53m Laundered To Pakistan. 8 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ As 8 Law Lords Found Fraud In 5 High Court’s Rulings. 9 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The Judiciary Corrupted By The Abuse Of Civil Court’s Procedures. 10 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Route Of Title Criminal In Its Entirety. 11 Documents Summary Proving That All ‘Charges’ & ‘Restrictions’ Must Be Immediately Removed. 12 Jordon’s BIS Search Proves That They Were No ‘Charges Registered’ On 14th of October 2005. 13-14 Registry Documents Prove KPMG Attempted To Register 16th May 2005 to ‘Cure’ 22nd June 2004 ‘Charge’. 15-18 Mr. Guy’s UN1 Was Registered On 29th March 2005 - 6th On Land Registry’s ‘Daylist (Pannone). 19 Mr. Guy’s Restriction On The Pending Register – Froze Everything. 20 DLA \ KPMG \ Barclays Confirmed That They Were No Charges Registered On 19th of July 2005. 21-22 DLA \ KPMG \ Barclays Attempted To Have Priority Extension Registered On 31st Oct 2005. 23-24 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Premeditated Organised Fraud, Criminal From Start To Finish. 25 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Criminal Plan By Registry To ‘Recover Charges’ On 4th March 2008. 26 Sovereignty Of The Land Registry Being Put Into Disrepute By All The ‘Protectors’ Of The Law. 27 Illegal Stay On Live Writ 6LS51776 Should Be Lifted & Judgment Entered, ‘Res Judicata’. 28 In May 2005, Bermans’ (Ten Acre Limited) objected to Mr. Guy’s 13th April 2005 Restrictions. 29 In January 2006, Adjudicator Gives Directions To Commence Legal Proceedings. 30-31 On 2nd of March 2006, Mr. Guy Issues Writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411; 7472 of 2006; 6243 of 2007). 32-33 On 24th July 2008, Administrators Withdrew Objection To 13th April 2005 Restriction (6LS51776) 34 On 6th of August 2008, Restriction Illegally & Criminally Registered Against All Titles. 35 On 27th August 2008, Adjudicators Close Files Without 6LS51776 Being Adjudicated Upon. 36 On 30th of October 2006, in 6LS30411, LJ Lord Order ‘Res Judicata’. 37 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Blatant & Brazen Theft, Followed By Regimented Denial of Justice. 38 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The Criminal Bankruptcy (HMRC v Guy (1101 2015 & 64 of 2015) (1). 39 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The Criminal Bankruptcy (HMRC v Guy (1101 2015 & 64 of 2015) (2). 40 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Trustee’s Will & Ability To Handle A Case Of This Magnitude. 41 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The Askewed Lucidity Of The Judiciary, Criminally Ignoring Laws. 42 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Justice Rose, DJ Hart & DJ Woods Will & Ability Handle This Case. 43 The Sovereignty Of The Judiciary Being Put Into Disrepute By All The ‘Protectors’ Of The Law. 44 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ Incontrovertible Proof Files Sent To All Relevant Authorities, Ignored. 45 ‘Protectors’, Land Registry & The Judiciary Guilty Of Abrogating Their Lawful Duties. 46 ‘Principal Protectors’ Abrogating Their Duties To Protect UK’s Constitution & Its Citizens. 47 ‘Watchers’ Abrogating Their Duties To Protect UK’s Constitution & Its Citizens (Muted Mutes). 48 ‘Witness Bearers’ Abrogating Duties To Protect UK’s Constitution & Its Citizens (Muted Mutes). 49 ‘Principal Perpetrators’ To Be Charged For Reset, As All Fully Advised Of The Fraud. 50 ‘Cohorts Perpetrators’ To Be Charged For Reset As All Fully Advised Of The Fraud. 51 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On 22nd June 2004 / 30th of July 2004 Criminally ‘Registered Charge’. 52 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Management Reports Proving Organised Criminality Among Many. 53 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Directors’ Loan Account ‘Game’. 54 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On What High Court Judges Said About Barclays’ Knowledge? 55 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Barclays’ Knowledge Before They Took Their Criminal ‘Charges’. 56 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Section 58 - Barclays’ Knowledge Before Their ‘Charges’. 57

2




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On 8th of March 2005 / 23rd of March 2005 Criminally ‘Registered Charge’. 58 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On 31st Oct 2005 ‘Registration’ (‘Register’ 23rd March 2005 ‘Charges)’. 59 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The 4th Version Of The Loan Agreement (27th of July 2005). 60 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On 6LS51776 Illegally Stayed, Based On Rule 55 & Rule 8 (1, 2, 3). 61 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Various Criminal ‘Statements Of Truths’. 62 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Barclays’ Claim Criminal As No Legal ‘Charges’ Whatsoever. 63 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Barclays’ v Guy (HC07CO2121, 16th Jan 2008) Criminal Judgment. 64 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Barclays’ v Guy (A3/2008/0120, 9th of April 2008) Criminal Judgment. 65 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ Guy v Barclays Illegal & Criminal ‘Judgment’ On 8th Dec 2010 Summary. 66 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Relevant Cases That Prove Judgements Were Bias To Barclays. 67 Premeditated, Organised, Illegal And Criminal Plan To ‘Unfreeze’ The Land Register. 68 Barclays v Guy’s Criminal Conclusion. 69 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Illegal Ruling By ‘Sir’ W Blackburne In Guy v Lawyers (HC09C00788). 70 Fraudulent Cases To Be Fully Investigated (1). 71 Fraudulent Cases To Be Fully Investigated (2). 72 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Whether Luqman Was The Real Mastermind? 73 Pannone’s Criminality Summarised. 74 KPMG’s Criminality Summarised. 75 DLA’s Criminality Summarised. 76 Linklaters’ Criminality Summarised. 77 George Davis’ Criminality Summarised. 78 Mace & Jones’ Criminality Summarised. 79 Weightman Vizards’ Criminality Summarised. 80 Halliwells’ Criminality Summarised. 81 Land Registry’s Route of Title Criminality Summarised. 82 Land Registry’s 4th of March 2008 ‘Charges’ Criminality Summarised. 83 Barclays Are Responsible For Treason, Unfit To Hold Banking License, Anywhere In The World 84 These Criminal Character Traits Never Change From Country To Country. 85 Criminal Charges Will Always Become ‘Just Another Day At The Office’ For The Banks. 86 Barclays’ Gallery That Must Be Jailed For ‘Reset’. 87 Potential Involved Parties To Be Questioned And Further Investigated. 88 ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Other Substantiating Files To Understand The Organised Fraud. 89 White Knights Consortium’s Involvement. 90 Fraud Graph 1. 91 Fraud Graph 2. 92

3




Your Majesty The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London. SW1A 1AA

25th of May 2017 By Recorded Delivery Post Your Majesty, Despite Mr. Trevor Guy being in touch with your Majesty from 11th of November 2008 and your initial response on 24th of November 2008, with subsequent correspondences during 2009 and 2010, we find Mr. Guy’s position getting worse year on year, despite his land ownership case being absolute.

14.10.05 Jordon’s BIS Proof No 2‘Charges’ Registered against Ten Acre Limited on 14.10.05. 22.06.04 TR1 Form Criminal TR1 legally declared fraudulent on 9.4.08 (A3/2008/0120). 22.06.04 DS1 Discharged Criminal Criminal - no authority whatsoever from Mr. Guy to discharge. 22.06.04 SDLT Form Criminal SDLT fraudulent as not registered on Inland Revenue System. 22.06.04 Pearl’s ‘Charges’ Criminal Criminally ‘Registered’ 30.7.04, attempted ‘Registration’ 16.5.06 29.07.04 Ap1 Form Criminal AP1 legally declared fraudulent 6.12.07 (CH/2007/APP/521). 08.03.05 Barclays’ ‘Charges’ Criminal Criminally ‘Registered’ 23.3.05 attempted ‘Registration’ 31.10.05 29.03.05 Mr. Guy’s UN1 Registered Registered - 6th on Land Registry’s ‘Daylist (App. Pannone). 29.03.05 Priority Extension Too Late DLA (Barclays) lost Priority as 7th on Land Registry’s ‘Daylist’. 13.04.05 Mr. Guy’s Restriction ‘Froze All’ Prevented any ‘Charges’ to be ‘Registered’ on his land. 15.04.05 Cancelation of UN1 5HG0776 Register was ‘frozen’ on 13.4.05, so UN1 couldn’t be removed. 19.07.05 Barclays’ Priority Ext No ‘Charges’ This confirmed that ‘Charges’ not ‘Registered’ & Never Could Be.

BARCLAYS LOST PRIORITY ON 29TH MARCH 2005 AND COULD NEVER GET IT BACK DUE TO MR. GUY’S 13TH OF APRIL 2005 RESTRICTION’S TERMS, “No disposition of the register stated by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of any registered charge is to be registered without a written consent signed by Trevor Guy...” What followed after 13th of April 2005 can only be described as premeditated organised criminality not only against your subject Mr. Guy, but against the Sovereignty of the Constitution and against the Sovereignty of your Majesty’s Monarchy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- DUE TO THE IMMENSE POWER AND INFLUENCE OF THE CRIMINAL BANKS, all your ‘Ministers’ and ‘Authorities Heads’ have totally ignored their lawful duties to uphold the law, due to the real fear of losing their jobs or worse. Bank of England is supposed to regulate the banks, but the ‘commercial’ banks are now far too big and far too powerful for even the Bank of England to control.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ DETAILED EVIDENCES OF FRAUD, FAKE DOCUMENTS, REGISTRATION ERRORS AND OUTRIGHT CRIMINALITY WITHIN THE LAND REGISTRY AND THE JUDICIARY is systematically ignored, supported by the Treasury and National Audit Office, fully backed by Yorkshire Police, Crown Prosecution Services and the Serious Fraud Office, intentionally and illegally ignored by the National Crime Agency, the ‘Principal Protectors’, ‘Watchers’ and all the ‘Witness Bearers’ as well. WE HAVE PROVIDED INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOFS TO ALL PARTIES, YET WE STILL HAVE TO FIND A SINGLE SOUL in the entire machinery of ‘Politics’, ‘Police’, ‘Judiciary’, and the ‘Regulatory Authorities’, who is prepared to prove their public paid worth by protecting the citizens of the UK, the Sovereignty of the Constitution and the Sovereignty of your Majesty’s Monarchy.

4




WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS CREDULOUS ‘PROFESSIONALS’ PASSING OFF AS THE ‘PRINCIPAL PROTECTORS’, ‘WATCHERS’, & ‘WITNESS BEARERS’, asymmetrically assisting the mercurial muggings, masterminded by Barclays, Lloyds, HBOS, KPMG, DLA & Linklaters, maliciously meddled with by the unsolicited solicitors and thrusted through the Civil Courts with menacing markings of injustice, against your subjects. This case is one of the many frauds perpetrated against your subjects and against your Monarchy by these same criminal organisations. WE HAVE PREPARED THIS REPORT AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTS TO FOLLOW TO PROVE that the criminal banks have infiltrated key positions within the UK’s Government and within UK’s core authorities, who publically abuse many of the Constitutional laws as proven in Mr. Guy’s case. AFTER YEARS OF REPORTING THIS MASSIVE ORGANISED CRIME TO ALL ‘AUTHORITIES’, WE NOW HAVE NO OTHER OPTION but to ask your Majesty to use your honored position to:

1. Strike out land transaction forms, TR1, API, SDLT, DSI & remove £15m as paid from Register. 2. Have Mr. T. Guy restored as the Registered Owner on title numbers LA57319, GM868172,

GM748978, GM632058 and order removal of all the charges & restrictions on the said titles, 3. Remove the illegal stay on live writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411, 7472 of 2006, 6243 of 2007) with

judgment entered (Res Judicata) as per ‘General Form of Judgment or Order’ on 6th of November 2006 by DJ Lord in Claim number 6LS30411, heard in Leeds High Court, which stated at point 5 of the judgment. "If the Defendant fails to comply then the defence and any part 20 claim shall be automatically struck out and the claimant be at liberty to enter judgment for an amount to be decided by the court and costs when the District Judge will give directions for the disposal of the case." and issue directions for 13 years of damages and/or have the case transferred to the criminal court.

NO FRAUDULENT ACTIONS COULD HAVE TAKEN ON MR. GUY’S LAND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF THE LAND REGISTER by the State, yet your ‘Ministers’ & all ‘authorities’ have even denied Mr. Guy, ‘State Guarantee of Title’, making all of them ‘unfit for purpose’. WE RELUCTANTLY HEREWITH GIVE YOUR MAJESTY 40 CALENDAR DAYS NOTICE FROM DATE OF THIS LETTER TO SORT OUT THE CRIMES being committed by the State of UK as a whole in order to avoid us taking actions against your Majesty, your ‘Ministers’ and your ‘Authorities’. WE SINCERELY APOLOGISE FOR SENDING YOU THIS UNPLEASANT COMMUNICATION but we are left with no other option whatsoever. We represent your Majesty’s obedient and humble servant Mr. Trevor Guy and 21 million homeowners. This case clearly shows menacing markings of a failed state. We sincerely thank your Majesty in advance for your time and consideration. Yours Faithfully,

Mr. Trevor Guy Written By The White Knights Consortium

CC Prince of Wales Prince Charles, Duke of Cambridge Prince William and Prince Harry.

5




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Introduction To Treason (Trevor Guy v Regina)

MOST SIMPLEST CASE OF LAND OWNERSHIP EVER WITNESSED: This case involves the attempted theft of +£20m land at Ten Acres Lane, Newton Heath, Manchester, title numbers LA57319, GM868172, GM748978 & GM632058, owned & legally still owned by Mr. Guy. Amazingly, alarmingly and unbelievably after 50+ court cases, spread over 13 years, with all authorities (including the Queen & the Prime Minister’s Office), receiving incontrovertible proofs of serious crimes being inflicted upon him by the ‘holy quartet’ of Barclays, KPMG, DLA & Linklaters, Mr. Guy’s plight has fallen on deaf ears. This is not an isolated case, as we are aware of other fraud cases, committed by the same perpetrators. ALL THE UK’S ‘PRINCIPAL PROTECTORS’, ‘WATCHERS’, & ‘WITNESS BEARERS’ ARE UNLAWFULLY ACTING AS MUTED MUTES, whilst claiming ‘honesty’ & ‘integrity’, purporting to ‘protect’ the ‘public interest’, where as in reality they have forsaken 21 million homeowners and many of the Constitutional laws, by abysmally anomalising all normality, by unlawfully ignoring the wholesale plundering of Barclays, Lloyds, HBOS, KPMG, DLA, Linklaters & their criminal teams, with grave consequences for the UK’s & European’s Constitutions, Constituents and the Continent. These trained ‘professionals’ have corrupted the Land Registry’s top tier to commit serious crimes on their behalf, whilst also decimating & corrupting the Civil Court procedures through the HM Courts & Tribunal Service with unlawful judgments (Judiciary). FRAUDULENT FAKE STATUTE DOCUMENTS AND SERIOUS DECEPTIONS ARE BELLIGERENTLY BEAMING EVERYWHERE: Over the years, we have provided incontrovertible proofs of the wholesale organised criminality to the Queen and to all the heads of the Admiralty, Action Fraud, NCA, SFO, Yorkshire Police, Manchester Police, CPS, MET, City of London Police, IPCC, SRA, FCA, NAO, Treasury Select Committee, Treasury, the Cabinet, including Attorney General, Justice Minister, Home Secretary & the Prime Minister, among 600 other ‘protectors’, yet shocking to amazement, what is truly beguiling, is that all these ‘protectors’ continue to ignore the very serious, premeditated, organised, money laundering, industrial scale fraud, involving criminal acts by the Land Registry, the Treasury, the Judiciary, the National Audit Office and the Home Office, putting foreign investment & trust in serious jeopardy. We have 88,000 more serious crime filled court documentations yet to analyse & expose, yet no authority even wants to see. ALL HIGH COURT JUDGES HAD KNOWLEDGE YET PASSED ILLEGAL JUDGMENTS IN FAVOUR OF BARCLAYS AND ITS CRIMINAL TEAM: LJ Mowchenson, LJ Lloyd, LJ Carnwath, LJ Blackbourne, LJ Henderson, LJ Briggs, LJ Langham, LJ Patten, LJ Behrens, LJ Moore Bick, LJ Collins, LJ Grenfell, LJ Wiilkie, DJ Khan, DJ Kaye, DJ Needham, DJ Wildsmith, DJ Whitfield, Lady Black, Vice Chancellor Judge Richardson, Justice Rose, DJ Hart & DJ Woods among others, passed ‘hoodwinked’ / illegal / criminal judgments that must be revisited. Our claims may appear to be incredible and beyond belief, perhaps ranting of a lunatic, but we can incontrovertibly prove every word we have written, beyond any reasonable doubt, from reliable court documents in the public domain. BARCLAYS’ CRIMINAL TEAM: Barclays are aided by their ‘Sergeant in Arms’ KPMG (Brian Green, Richard Fleming, Glyn Badley), DLA Piper LLP (Paul Fleming, Crispen Jones), Linklaters LLP (Katie Bradford, Simon Hartley) & Eddisons (John Padgett), supported by law firms such as Pannone LLP (Alex Megaw, James Farn, Joy Kingsley, Simon McCrum), George Davis LLP (Paul Bibby), Mace & Jones LLP (Phillip Farrelly, Varun Maharaj), Wacks Caller LLP (Mike Hewitt), Weightman Vizards LLP (Mike Hewitt), Halliwells LLP (Keith Hobson, Gareth Atkinson, Paul Marco), Bermans (Phillip Farrelly), Betesh Partnership (Nick Heywood), Beachcroft Wansboroughs LLP & Harper Mcload LLP criminally fully backed by accountants such as PWC, KLSA & PKF (Dan Bankcroft), among others, who aided & abetted Barclays by ignoring all their usual professional code of conduct and helping to break any law that was necessary with impunity, with truck loads of misrepresentations & perjuries, to criminally corrupt the very heart of UK’s & European’s Constitutions. ALL UK MINISTERS, AUTHORITIES, LLOYDS, TSB, & HBOS CRIMINALLY STAYING SILENT TO BARCLAYS’ CRIMINALITY: Lloyds TSB wanted to close Lexi down in 2004, but were bought-out in 2004 with ‘hush money’ in order to criminally keep Lexi alive. Subsequently Lloyds bought out HBOS and were forced back into Ten Acres Lane land affairs. The Alterim Lloyds TSB branch, used by Luqman was the same branch used in another identical fraud, namely ‘Arrows’, which laundered plus +£90m through it. All Ministers, authorities, Lloyds, TSB, HBOS have known of the inherent problems with Ten Acres Lane land, yet they have criminally kept quite instead of forcing Barclays to correct their criminal wrong doings, making themselves accomplices of Barclays. Amazingly it appears that UK does not have one single ‘trusted’ soul within the ‘Principal Protectors’, ‘Watchers’, & ‘Witness Bearers’ or have they all proved their ‘incompetence’ by not ‘comprehending’ 6 straight forward statute documents, even after receiving incontrovertible, irrebuttable proofs of very serious frauds & criminality. The sheer simplicity of this case is not being summarized or finalized, so how can we trust these ‘ministers’ to negotiate mutually beneficial Brexit? Are they ‘Fit for purpose’???

6

Barclays’ Criminal World Control 'Blue Print' Graph Showing Organised Fraud Premeditated, Highly Complex, Organised, Terrorist Financing, Tax Evading, Industrial Scale Fraud. Orchestrated By Barclays Supported By KPMG & DLA Power Shown Below Is The Blueprint Of The Power They Exert In Each & Every Area They Operate In With Total Disregard For The Law As Clearly Shown Each & Every Person In The World Is At Mercy Of These 'Organisations'. Only Option Is To Break These Global Powers Just As USA Did With Standard Oil Case Clearly Shows That UK is Perhaps The Most Corrupt Country In The World & Europe Is Toothless In Controling & Protecting Its Laws & Constitution Great Prime Minister Prime Minister UK's Government Attorny General Treasury Select Committee National Audit Office Home Office Mr. David Cameron Mrs. Teressa May Via HMRC 4 Government Mr. Jeremy White (SFO) Info Sent To All Commiteee Members Info Sent To All Commiteee Members Info Sent To All Heads Inquiry HMRC & SFO Total Ignore All Contact Will Investigate-No Action Disgrace No Response Alarmingly Ignore Without Response Alarmingly Ignoree Without Response Ignored No Response

MI5 MI6 MET National Crime Agency National Fraud Bereau of Investigation Police Complaints Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) Legal Obmudsman No Action No Action Not Interested - Why? Waste York Police -- Anti-Corruption No Response As Yet? Alarmingly No Respose Whatsoever - Exist? Should be Dismantled

If The 'Holy Trio' Can Launder In Excess Of £50m On Back Of A Petty Crook, How Much Are They Laundering In Their Global Businesses? Who To & Why? Land Registry Serious Fraud Office York/Manchester Police HM Court & Tribunal Ser. Treasury (HMRC) Financial Conduct Authority Solicitors Regulating AuthorityProven Criminal Actions Lexi's Laughable Report Ignoring All Crimes Criminal Bankruptcy Illegal Pre-Birth Tax Ignored All Crimes Over The Years Ignored All Crimes Over The Years

No Authority Head Or Any Authority, Even A Single Country (Even UK) Can Challenge The Combined Power Of The 'Holy Trio' of Barclays, KMPG & DLA What Else Could You Expect From A Legally Declared Criminal Organisation Born Out Of The Slave Trade?

Barclay Bank PLCJohn MacFarlane Sir Michael Rake Joe Staley Sunil Chirayth Ashok Waswani Tushak Muzaria Johanathan Moulds

Although All The Top 8 Have been Fully Advised, Instead Of Reporting & Investigating The Crimes And Sorting Out Mr. Guy, They Criminally Decided To Sale The Stolen Property Making Them All Criminals To Be Charged

Bob Diamond Roger Jenkins James sackett Peter Richardson Clive Gresham Marcus Palmer

Lloyds TSB HBOS

KPMG DLA Piper LLP Brian Green, Richard Fleming, Glyn Badley Paul Flemming Crispen Jones

Impossible To Miss - All Ignored Law The 'Holy Trio's' Criminal Power Base Blueprint For Each & Every Area They Operate In - 4 More Similar Cases Yet To Expose. PWC KLSA PKF Pannone LLP Eddisons Halliwells LLP Linklaters LLP Auditors Auditors D Bankcroft Alex Megaw James Farn Simon Mcrum Joy Kingsley John Padget Paul Marco Keith Hobson Garath Aitkenson Katie Bradford Simon Hartley

No Report No Report From HWC Aided & Abated Luqman from 2001-2004 Without Recrimation? Intricately Involved had Mr. Guy's £10m TRI Form? Perjuries & Misrepresentations

Prepared By The George Davis Mace & Jones Four Musketeers Weightmans Betish Bermans Beachcroft Harper White Knights Consortium Paul Bibby Varun Marahaj Pilip FarrellyPhillip Farelly Mike Hewitt N. Heywood P. Farrelly McLoad 24th Of September 2016 Conspiracy & Perjuries Thieves Without Legal Conveyencing Paperwork Conspiracy Confuser Bribes? Crimminal

Magna Carta 2016 Information Sent To All Perpetrators High Court Judges We Challenge All To Prove Us Wrong In All We Proclaim! Vice Chancetlor Judge Richardson, Chief Master Winegarten, Master Wright, LJ Mowchenson, LJ Lloyd, LJ Carnwart, LJ Blackbourne, LJ Henderson, LJ Briggs, LJ Langham, LJ Patten,

LJ Behrens, LJ Moore Bick, LJ Black, LJ Collins, LJ Grenfell, LJ Wiilkie, DJ Khan, DJ Kaye, DJ Needham, DJ Needham, DJ Whitfield, DJ Hart, Justice Rose & DJ Woods among others, All Passed Illegal Judgment Wittingly Or Unwittingly Due To Perjuries & Misrepresentations By Barclays & Its Criminal Team. All Judgments Should Be Revisited With The New Evidence Provided At OUR Expense.

7




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On All ‘Protectors’ & All Authorities Ignoring +£53m Laundered To Pakistan THE ULTIMATE SIZE OF THE FRAUD HAS BEEN PUT AS HIGH AS £125M with some sources even quoting as high as +£250m. All we know for certain is that by June, 2006, +£53m had been laundered to Pakistan as stated in Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 1, "... a fraud which is truly shocking in its scale and audacity....three years, Shaid misappropriated in excess of £53 million... all under the noses of the claimant’s auditors, solicitors and funding bankers...” We state that this money was not laundered by the Luqmans brothers as they had no signing rights, but by ‘Professionals’ yet to be interrogated & charged. In paragraph 88 of Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), LJ Briggs breaks down the +£53m:

➢ “£5.19 million by the time of Monuza's and Mr Davis's appointments”. (HCW’s Circumstance Letter Jan 2004) ➢ “The cumulative total passed the £10 million mark in May 2004.” (After 2 PWC Audit and DLA due diligence?). In Lexi

v Luqmans, paragraph 56, “...31st December 2003...£22.08 million odd in 2003 and £4.66 million odd in 2002.” Judge Briggs' puts the figure for the cumulative fraud in May 2004 at a figure of £10m, but this is not consistent with the bogus Directors’ Loan Account of £22.08m at the previous year end.

➢ “...reached £18.48 million by the time of Mr Jewson's & Mr Hill's appointments.” (Nov 2005 after HCW’s trial). ➢ “£20 million mark during March 2005 and,” (After KPMG & DLA were fully involved & In control) ➢ “£30 million mark during December 2005. (As per Loan Agreement, Barclays should have closed Lexi). ➢ “It passed £40 million by June 2006” and reached, ➢ “...three years, Shaid misappropriated in excess of £53 million...”

FRAUD INVOLVING DIRECTORS’ LOAN ACCOUNT AND FALSE ACCOUNTS: Pearl’s accounts were wrong as false ‘£3’ profit’ laundered into the accounts (money laundered by whom?), criminally never corrected in the company’s account as stated in Pearl v HCW (4MA70055), page 12, 48-51, “...subsequently sold in July 2003, realising more than £3m”. £53M MISAPPROPRIATED FROM THE 3 BANK ACCOUNTS: In Lexi v Luqmans & Others , paragraphs 25-27, between October 2002 and August 2006 as stated, “The aggregate of £53,311,561.03 alleged to have been dishonestly misappropriated between 7 October 2002 and 29 August 2006 from three bank accounts...Barclays Bank plc numbered 50138029 (involvement of Lexi’s Barclays Corporate Account has been significantly downplayed)...The second account United National Bank numbered 0001-012267. The third account... Lloyds TSB Bank plc numbered 02522199”. In Lexi v Luqmans & Others

, at paragraph 73, “...Claimant’s own Barclays account, amounting in total to £17.3 million odd.,,, Next came £9.2 million odd received from the Lloyds TSB Account.” in Lexi v Luqmans & Others, paragraph 39. “The Lloyds TSB Account was opened in January 2002, and closed in June 2005.” UNB’s account paragraph 10, “...opened in early September 2005..., until July 2006.” UNB’s Bank Officials were Mr. Mufit, Vikas Monaner & Mr. Mohammed Akhlaq. Is it really possible that Barclays were ‘apparently’ defrauded of vast sums of money from an account right under their noses, particularly when they knew of Luqman’s fraud from the Pearl v HCW’s Judgment (4MA70055), where the judge called in the Crown Prosecution Service? £80m of the consortium's money went to the Lloyds TSB’s account: In Lexi v Luqmans & Others (HC06C04067), paragraph 44, Briggs “...approximately £80 million... received into the Lloyds TSB Account...” KPMG UNSURE OF AMOUNT STOLEN? In Lexi v Luqmans & Others after one year and £5m worth of investigations, KPMG could not be sure whether the fraud amounted to £50m odd or over £100m. How? 560 pages report and £5m worth of investigation, they did not know how much was stolen in a bridging company? What were the difficulties in coming to the exact correct figure? Was this £5m further bribe to KPMG to keep covering Barclays’ backs as it is simply not understandable, why they did not know amount stolen, especially in a bridging company?

FRAUD PAYS: In Lexi v Luqmans, paragraph 144, Briggs states, “…I was told by Mr. Marshall in response to my enquiry that the administrators' recoveries to date amount to some £57 million {inclusive of the Ten Acre property) and that the final outcome may go as high as £94 million, against secured creditors of £105 million.” Whilst the fraud doubled, Barclays recovered most of their money in less than 2 years. Congeries of crooked criminals, individuals & corporations, audaciously advocating all truths, whilst underhandedly, shamelessly stealing by stealth, showing no remorse, affording no redress, or remedy. Barclays’ boys know how to play, do the UK’s ‘Ministers’ & ‘Authorities’ know how to do their legal compulsory duties? KPMG & DLA DO EXCEPTIONALLY WELL KEEPING FRAUD ONGOING: Further to the initial investigation fee of £5.5m, Tribune reported on 7th May 2014 that, “KPMG administrators managed to recover assets for Barclays valued at £42.3 million, including £6.7 million from the professional advisers of Lexi. But costs of the administration have exceeded £28.4 million” The Lancashire Magazine wrote on 12th October 2014 that, “Lawyers have also done well out of the case, charging around £13m in fees”. Why should KMPG & DLA stop Barclays’ criminality? Even Mezzanine Finance gets nothing after fees.

8




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ As 8 Law Lords Found Fraud In 5 High Court’s Rulings

1. 'FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT' ON LEXI V TREVOR GUY (5HG0776), Harrogate County Court on 15th of April 2005, adjudicated by Judge Wood. Application to remove the UN1 from the Register was made by Mace & Jones, but removal could not take effect due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions & Land Registry’s Rule 55. If UN1 could not be removed on this application, than how could the UN1 be removed on criminal Order 24?

2. 'FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT' ON GIBRALTAR SUPREME COURT ORDER (COMP. NO 70 OF 2005 GIBRALTAR): hoodwinking Chief Justice Schofield on the 12th Day of October 2005, where the Hearing was held in (1) private, so Barclays & its agents could (2) perjured that this Priority Application was only due to advertence, whilst perjuring that there were no objections to their ‘Priority’ extension, when there were two public registered objections namely UN1 (29th of March 2005) on the Land Register & Restriction (13th of April 2005) on the Pending Register. Late Registration rules state that (3) company must be solvent, Ten Acre Limited had not traded and therefore insolvent; (4) All interested parties to be notified, yet Mr. Guy was not notified.

3. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON TREVOR GUY V MACE & JONES (8 0F 2007, 26th July 2007): Chief Master Winegarten found fraud when he judged that the API was not properly executed, making the API legally void.

4. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON GUY V MACE & JONES (CH/2007/APP/521, 6th of December 2007): The AP1

Form was legally declared fraudulent & void by LJ Henderson in paragraph 23, “...there would be a prima facie case of fraud to be met…” Once LJ Henderson had found fraud, he had no jurisdiction to proceed, based on HIH Insurance V Chase Manhattan Bank ([2003] UKHL 6 where in paragraph 77, eight Law Lords declared that when fraud is found, it must be heard by a jury. In Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 192, LJ Briggs stated, “...Nonetheless, Shaid was well embarked upon his course of plundering the Claimant’s assets by the end of 2003...”

5. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS V GUY A3/2008/0120, 9th of April 2008): LJ Lloyd & LJ Carnwath legally declared the TR1 form fraudulent & void as stated on point 8, “ ..I am prepared to proceed on the footing...it would be a void document. It would be a piece of paper of no value or dispositive effect.” Once LJ Lloyd had found fraud, he had no jurisdiction to proceed, based on .

6. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE LAND REGISTRY: In Barclays v Guy A3/2008/0120, 9th of April 2008),

LJ Lloyd stated at point 10, “...a reasonable arguable basis for saying that he (Guy) would be entitled, if allegations are made out, to have the Register rectified...” LJ Lloyd stated at paragraph 19, "I can see that he could well arguably show (yes) that the registration of the original transfer was a mistake, especially if the transfer was the product of a forgery, because the registration of something that was not properly executed (yes) on the part of the registered proprietor must be a mistake. The Land Registry has refused to re-register Mr. Guy as the Registered Owner without a court order.

7. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS’ CHARGE A3/2008/0120, 9th of April 2008): LJ Lloyd continued at point 10, “....There is no question of that kind as regards the charge (?). It was properly executed (How?) by [the company]…" Judgment claimed that under Section 58, the ‘Charge’ must remain, because it was perjured that it was properly executed on 8th / 23rd March 2005, which was impossible due to 19th of July 2005 priority extension application (Comp. no 70 of 2005 Gibraltar) and Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions terms.

8. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS’ KNOWLEDGE A3/2008/0120, 9th of April 2008): LJ Lloyd’s conclusion was: So the question is whether Mr Guy can show an arguable case (yes), on the evidence, for saying that Barclays Bank had actual notice (yes) or was turning a blind eye (yes) to matters that it knew, which would if it addressed them properly, have shown it that Ten Acres Limited did not have good title to the property Barclays had clear knowledge from 12th of November 2004 by receiving Pearl v HCW (case No 4MA70055) judgment. Page 24 shows clear fraud knowledge. Also see Lexi v Pannone (Case No HCO8C01319); Barclays Knowledge Before They Took Charge & Barclays’ Complicity that show Barclays were far from being innocent party as claimed.

9. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS V GUY, MASTERS OF THE ROLLS (A3/2008/0120(B), 8th of December 2010): Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Patten & Lady Justice Black all found the transfer fraudulent & void. Once they had found fraud, they had no jurisdiction to proceed, based on ([2003] UKHL 6.

10. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON GUY V MACE & JONES AND OTHERS (HC09C00788, 24th of April 2012). LJ

Blackburne found all the transfer fraudulent & all lawyers guilty. Once he had found fraud, he had no jurisdiction to proceed, based on

9




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The Judiciary Being Corrupted By The Abuse Of Civil Court’s Procedures BARCLAYS & ITS CRIMINAL TEAM HAVE DESIGNED A SYSTEMATIC PROCESS TO STEAL LAND FROM HARD WORKING HONEST MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE BETWEEN £5M - £50M: Lexi was designed to give just six months bridging facility to parties that Barclays’ criminal team knew they could easily rob, by criminally tarnishing the victims’ names. Critical conclusion of documents concludes that a visceral, vicious & malicious victimization has been vigorously pursued throughout against Mr. Guy. We know of three more similar cases, involving the same criminal organised team. 1. ONLY A HANDFUL OF LAW FIRMS HAVE THE INSURANCE ALLOWING THEM TO HANDLE CASES ABOVE £5M;

ALL CLEVERLY EMPLOYED BY THE CRIMINAL BANKS: If a claim is in excess of the £5m (as Mr. Guy), only a handful of law firms have the insurance allowing them to handle these cases. Unfortunately all of these law firms are cleverly employed by Barclays & all the other banks. Therefore someone like Mr. Guy has no law firm that he can really approach, without the said law firm being conflicted. The said law firm must always sell out their client or have their career abruptly destroyed & ended due to the immense, incredible, corrupt power of the criminal banks.

2. THE ORGANISED CRIMINAL LAW FIRMS OFFER THEIR CONFLICTED SERVICE TO DELIBERATELY LEAD THE

VICTIM TO OBLIVION, confidently knowing that no one will question their criminal actions, be it other counsels, judges, police, SFO and the government, as proven in Mr. Guy’s case. These law firms even rob insurance companies by doing full blown reports and once paid, they dump the case, stating they cannot do the case under an excuse. Eventually the victim realises that the only way is to defend yourself. Rules & Procedures are then criminally used to trip the litigant in person at every stage, criminally using the Judiciary as a weapon against the victim.

3. THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO DENY YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PUT UP A PROPER REBUTTLE

UNDER THE GUISE OF “PRIVILEGE & CONFIDENTIALITY”: These criminal law firms main aims is to quickly evaporate the three appeal chances. Once these chances are exhausted by illegal judgments, based on perjuries and misrepresentations, whilst hiding behind ‘privilege & confidentiality’, the claimants, such as Mr. Guy, have no further recourse, even though they can incontrovertibly prove the systematic, organised blatant & brazen theft and all the criminal defamation wrongfully inflicted upon them.

4. ORGANSED CRIMINALS SYSTEMATICALLY BANKRUPT THE VICTIM WITH CRIMINAL ‘BILLS’: In Barclays v Guy

(HC07C02121), on 16th Jan 2008, LJ Mowschenson approves Linklaters £406,000 ‘cost’ for half day illegal summary hearing, won on repeated perjuries & misrepresentations. Is it possible that after £406,000 ‘cost’, Linklaters ‘did not know’ that Barclays did not have any charges or they did not find that Barclays, KPMG & DLA were fully complicit in ‘Lexi’s’ fraud, especially after Mr. Guy’s exposure? Mr. Guy’s 7 bankruptcy petitions & 11 repossessions were by lawyers represented in the 27th July 2005 criminal Loan Agreement, used to raise £125m without any real security. Once asset ‘stolen’, Barclays can use the ‘asset’ to raise 10 times it value, to profit from, until (if) returned.

5. IF A MAN LIKE MR. GUY TRIES TO CONTINUE FIGHTING FOR REAL JUSTICE, HE CANNOT: IVA operators Moore

Stephens & the current ‘Trustee’ Lucas Johnston systematically operate Mr. Guy’s affairs to make sure that he is systematically put to financial death. They will not allow Mr. Guy to buy out his criminal bankruptcy, nor allow him to raise any court actions, whilst ensuring that they do not protect his stolen assets. They will try and make sure no one can help him either. Lucas Johnston applied for extension of Mr. Guy’s bankruptcy by perjuring that Mr. Guy has not co-operated. The Civil Courts have built up a systematic system of revolving door of denial to defy Justice.

6. THE AUTHORITIES USE UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIATED LINK OR LOGIC, TO

CRIMINALLY IGNORE THE TSUNAMI OF VERY SERIOUS CRIMES, as clinically stated by Ms. Melanie Spanton of the North Yorkshire Police (in her letter reference L2L5OZAO794, dated 15th of March 2016) “The circumstances surrounding the Barclays charge have been examined in various courts (?) and much of the rationale behind allowing it to stand appears to rest on decisions made about your dealings (?) with Pearl/Lexi, hence our inability to separate these factors (?).”

7. LOCKDOWN - MAKING THEFT LEGAL AT LAW WITHIN UK, WITH THE BLESSING OF THE GOVERNMENT & ALL

THE AUTHORITIES: Mr Guy a) cannot buyout his criminal bankruptcy, b) cannot apply for annulment, c) cannot issue any sort of writ against the Land Registry to strike out the fraudulent charges, d) cannot remove the illegal stay on his live writ, 6LS51776 / 6LS304111 / 7472 OF 2006, 6243 OF 2007, illegally & criminally being put to his financial death, without being able to defend himself against his illegal & criminal bankruptcies, demanding that Attorney General, the Justice Minister, The Secretary of State, The National Audit Office & the Treasury Select Committee including Anti-Corruption must immediately take emergency joint actions in order to preserve justice in UK.

10




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Route Of Title Criminal In Its Entirety

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BLANK DOCUMENTS OF NO LEGAL VALUE: On 19th of April 2004, Mr. Guy signed a blank £10 million TRI Forms on title numbers GM632058, GM748978, GM868172 & LA57319 & a blank sales contract to be held in escrow. The originals now sit with Mr. Guy. The proposed sale was aborted on 17th of June 2004.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON TRI FORMS, LEGALLY DECLARED FRAUDULENT: On 22nd of June 2004, Mr. P. A. Farrelly of Mace & Jones submitted the stolen TRI forms without any power of attorney; un-represented seller; no exchanged contracts; no survey report; no title deeds; no consideration paid & no completion statement, yet the Land Registry ‘amazingly’ transferred the ‘land. Mace & Jones (Maharaj) were informed that the sale had aborted on 21st June 2004 by Mr Paul Bibby of George Davis, and yet they criminally submitted the TRI Forms on 22nd of June 2004. The TR1 Forms were legally declared fraudulent in Barclays v Guy (HCO7CO2121), page 3, point 8, “... The Judge took the view that the transfer was voidable... I am prepared to proceed (?) ...it would be a void document. It would be a piece of paper of no value or dispositive effect.” TRI Forms legally must be struck off from Land Register & Mr. Guy restored as the Registered Owner. LJ Lloyd had no jurisdiction to proceed once fraud found.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON DSI CRIMINAL DISCHARGE OF MR. GUY’S LOANS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OR KNOWLEDGE: DSI Transfer of Mr. Guy’s loan dated 22nd of June 2004 was also an illegal transfer; without a live file on the transaction; without undertaking from any solicitor(s); without Power of Attorney from Mr. Guy; without any release of any kind; without Mr. Guy being notified of the transfer. Therefore the DSI Forms legally must be struck off from the Land Register as ‘void ab initio’.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE FRAUDULENT SDLT FORM: The SDLT Form dated

22nd of June 2004 is a fraudulent document, as not listed on the Inland Revenue system & legally has to be struck off. On the SDLT Form, Mace & Jones (Maharaj) put Betesh Partnership as acting for Mr. Guy, yet on 4th of May 2005, Mace & Jones (Farrelly), in their objection to the Restrictions, stated that Weightman Vizards acted for Trevor Guy. Land Registry illegally shows £15m paid, yet no payment traced, no tax demanded, therefore the illegal £15m as stated as paid, legally must be struck off from the Land Register.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE LEGALLY DECLARED FRAUDULENT API FORM:

The AP1 Form dated 29th of July 2004 was legally declared fraudulent by Judge Henderson in Guy v Mace & Jones (Ch/2007/app/521) on the 6th of December 2007, as stated in paragraph 13, “...incorrect statements entered upon the Form API to the effect that it was Mr. Guy who was applying to change the register and that his solicitors were Mace & Jones if that is correct, that was of course not true because he did not have a solicitor...However the transaction was completed upon the basis of these documents, but none of the alleged completion monies... no completion statement...” In paragraph 23, “...there would be a prima facie case of fraud to be met…” AP1 Forms legally declared void documents (‘Void AB Initio’ means to be treated as invalid from the outset (seriously offends law). Therefore the AP1 Forms legally must be struck off from the Land Register as ‘void ab initio’. As KPMG (administrators) withdrew their objection to Restriction, ‘Res Judicata’ to live writ 6LS51776 / 6243 0f 2007 and with the Route of Title being criminal in its entirety, Mr. Guy should immediately be re-registered as the Registered Owner.

11


“Fraus Omnia Corrumpit” Vitiates All Judgments, Contracts And All Transactions Whatsoever. Criminal Charges Will Be Raised Against Authorities Who Fail To Act As No One/Organisation Is Above The Law!Fraud Is Never Time Barred. Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied. Guy With No Law.

Documents Summary Proving That All ‘Charges’ & ‘Restrictions’ Must Be Immediately Removed Jordon’s BIS Search Proves That They Were No ‘Charges Registered’ On 14th of October 2005

Jordon’s BIS search proves that they were no ‘Charges Registered’ on 14th of October 2005 and no ‘Charges’ could never be registered on Mr. Guy’s Land due to Mr. Guy’s 13th April 2005 Restrictions.

13 – 14

Illegal & Criminal Attempt Was Made On 16th of May 2006 To ‘Finalise’ 22nd of June 2004 ‘Charges’

Prevented By Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions Terms – Immediately Remove

Land Registry OS3R dated 19th of December 2007 (Official Search 183-CN-GM), proves that attempt was made on 16th of May 2006 to finalise the 22nd of June 2004 ‘Charges’ as it stated, “Application, Enter a Restriction relating to the Registered Charge dated 16th May 2006 in favour of Lexi Holdings PLC without the consent of Brian Green or Richard Dixon Fleming (joint administrator of Lexi Holdings PLC), received on 11th October 2006.”

15 – 16

Land Registry’s Official Copy of Register of Title, dated 4th Sep 2014, stated (6), “(11.10.2006) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered charge dated 22 June 2004 in favor of Lexi Holdings PLC referred to above is to be registered without the consent of Brian Green or Richard Dixon Fleming as joint administrators of the proprietor of the said registered charge.” 11.10.06 Restriction on 22.6.04 ‘Charges’.

17 – 18

Land Registry’s Daylist Dated 25th May 2005 Proves Barclays 8th 23rd March 2005 ‘Charges’

Lost Priority On 29th of March 2005 As 7th on the List – Immediately Remove

Mr. Guy’s UN1 Was Registered On 29th March 2005 - 6th on Land Registry’s ‘Daylist (Pannone). Barclays Lost Their Priority On Same Day As Application 7th On Land Registry’s ‘Daylist’ (DLA).

19

Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Prevented Any ‘Charges’ Whatsoever To Be Registered

“No disposition of the register stated by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of any registered charge is to be registered without a written consent signed by Trevor Guy...”

20

DLA (Barclays/KPMG) Confirmed That They Were No ‘Charges Registered’ On 19th of July 2005

DLA \ KPMG \ Barclays confirmed that they were no charges registered on 19th of July 2005 when they applied to extend their priority. Application based on perjuries , ‘…the Registrar of Companies’ notification that there are no objections hereto...”, yet Mr. Guy had a UN1 dated 29th of March 2005, Registered On The Charges Register & Restrictions Dated 13th of April 2005 On The Pending Register, Breaking All Late Registration Rules With Mr. Guy Not Notified & Ten Acre Limited Being Insolvent. The Priority Extension Application Was Heard on 12th of October 2005 (Comp. no 70 of 2005 Gibraltar). Chief Justice Schofield protected Mr. Guy by the very last sentence of his judgment, “And this order is without prejudice to the rights of any person acquired between the date of creation of the said legal charge and the date of its actual registration.”

21 – 22

DLA (Barclays/KPMG) Attempted To Register 8th/23rd March 2005 On 31st of October 2005

Prevented By Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions Terms – Immediately Remove

DLA \ KPMG \ Barclays Attempted To have Their Illegal & Criminal Priority Extension Registered At Gibraltar Company House on 31st of October 2005, “...it is hereby certified that the mortgage or charge created by a Legal Charge dated the 8th day of March 2005 to secure an unlimited amount was registered on 31st day of October 2005” It was Impossible to fully register the ‘Charges’ due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions. Failure to register charge at Company House on time renders the Judgment void.

23 – 24

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Premeditated Organised Fraud, Criminal From Start To Finish Barclays v Guy’s rulings affects 21 million home owners spread all over UK, hence it is a duty of every MP to act, failing to do, makes them accomplices. The ‘Principal Protectors’, ‘Watchers’, & ‘Witness Bearers’, paid from the public purse, must not be allowed to abrogate their duties, in order for corporations, to criminally exploit legal loopholes with their blessing, whilst claiming high moral stance of honesty, decency & courtesy. Date Description Status Summary

14.10.05 Jordon’s BIS Proof No ‘Charges’ Registered against Ten Acre Limited on 14.10.05. 22.06.04 TR1 Form Criminal TR1 legally declared fraudulent on 9.4.08 (A3/2008/0120). 22.06.04 DS1 Discharged Criminal Criminal - no authority whatsoever from Mr. Guy to discharge. 22.06.04 SDLT Form Criminal SDLT fraudulent as not registered on Inland Revenue System. 22.06.04 Pearl’s ‘Charges’ Criminal Criminally ‘Registered’ 30.7.04, attempted ‘Registration’ 16.5.06 29.07.04 Ap1 Form Criminal AP1 legally declared fraudulent 6.12.07 (CH/2007/APP/521). 08.03.05 Barclays’ ‘Charges’ Criminal Criminally ‘Registered’ 23.3.05 attempted ‘Registration’ 31.10.05 29.03.05 Mr. Guy’s UN1 Registered Registered - 6th on Land Registry’s ‘Daylist (App. Pannone). 29.03.05 Priority Extension Too Late DLA (Barclays) lost Priority as 7th on Land Registry’s ‘Daylist’. 13.04.05 Mr. Guy’s Restriction ‘Froze All’ Prevented any ‘Charges’ to be ‘Registered’ on his land. 15.04.05 Cancelation of UN1 5HG0776 Register was ‘frozen’ on 13.4.05, so UN1 couldn’t be removed. 19.07.05 Barclays’ Priority Ext No ‘Charges’ This confirmed that ‘Charges’ not ‘Registered’ & Never Could Be.

GAME OVER: Barclays lost their Priority on 29th of March 2005 and could never legally get it back due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 terms, “No disposition of the register stated by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of any registered charge is to be registered without a written consent signed by Trevor Guy...”

--------------------------------------------------------------------- A GROUP OF AUDACIOUS, STUPENDOUS, SHYSTERS, SHROUDING A DARK CLOUD OF WILLFUL SERIOUS CRIMINALITY WENT TO ‘WORK’ to somehow criminally try & ‘recover’ Barclays’ ‘Charges’. What followed after 13th of April 2005 can only be described as premeditated, organised criminality by many ‘professionals’, yet to be fully ‘understood’ and charged. These ‘professionals’ stupefyingly, stuporously, willingly, with criminal intent, processed fake documents and evidences through the civil courts, to commit serious fraud.

27.07.05 Loan Agreement Criminal 8 days later they criminally raised £125m on Mr. Guy’s land 12.10.05 Extension Granted Criminal Based on perjuries & breaking late registration rules. 31.10.05 Registration (8.3.05) Criminal Could not legally be completed due to Mr. Guy’s Restriction. 2.03.06 Live Writ 6LS51776 Criminal Conspiracy to defraud by unlawful means writ illegally stayed. 16.05.06 Registration (22.6.04) Criminal Could not legally be completed due to Mr. Guy’s Restriction. 10.08.07 Premeditated ‘Claim’ Criminal No ‘Charges’ yet claim to criminally ‘Unfreeze’ the Register. 24.09.07 Statement of Truth Criminal Katie Bradford’s statement filled with perjuries with intent. 10.10.07 7472 0f 2006 (6LS51776) Criminal LJ Briggs criminally stayed this writ at part 20, against

Adjudicators Rule 8 (1, 2, 3) and Land Registry’s Rule 55. 16.01.08 Order 24 (HC07CO2121) Criminal No ‘Charges’, Summary bought judgment? Full of Perjuries.

4.3.08

Premediated criminal actions by the Land Registry ignored by all

Restriction Cancellation

Criminal

Restrictions were criminally ‘Cancelled’ by the Land Registry on 4th of March 2008, based on the illegal & criminal 16th of January 2008 Order 24 (HC07CO2121) to remove the adjudicated UN1 (5HG0776). This only allowed UN1 to be removed, leaving all else as was and immediately return the 13th of April 2005 Restrictions date. Restrictions dates were not returned until August 2008, in order to complete the fraud, including ‘hoodwinking’ both LJ Lloyd & LJ Carnwath in A3/2008/0120, heard on 9th of April 2008.

9.4.08 Appeal (A3/2008/0120) Criminal No ‘Charges’, won based on outright perjuries with intent. 8.12.10 Appeal (A3/2008/0120(B) Criminal No ‘Charges’, won based on outright perjuries with intent.

24.04.2012 Lawyers (HC09C00788) Criminal All lawyers guilty, but went onto quantum? Quantum?

25




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The Criminal Plan By Land Registry To ‘Recover Charges’ On 4th March 2008 To Make 30th of July 2004 & 23rd of March 2005 Criminally Registered, Aided By The Land Registry

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON ADJUDICATOR’S RULE 8 – (1, 2, 3) & LAND REGISTRY’S RULE 55: Both rules clearly prohibited 16th of January 2008 (HC07CO2121) case to proceed, before live writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411, 7472 of 2006, 6243 of 2007) was adjudicated upon. Adjudicator’s rule “8–(1) This rule applies where the Adjudicator has directed a party under Section 110(1) to commence Court proceedings on the whole of the matter. 8–(2) Once he has received notice under rule 7(2)(a) that court proceedings have been issued, the adjudicator must adjourn all of the proceedings before him pending the outcome of the court proceeding. Rule 55, clearly states that each application must be dealt in the order it was received.

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS’ ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL, PREMEDITATED ORDER 24 CLAIM (HC07CO2121): Barclays had no legal ‘Charges’ whatsoever when they initiated their 30th of July 2007 claim, heard on 16th of January 2008, making their claim & the judgment illegal & criminal in their entirety and thus legally void.

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’’ ON 16TH OF JANUARY 2008 (HC07CO2121) ORDER: Barclays were granted an illegal & criminal Order 24 with ‘power of sale’, based on their agents, Linklaters, perjuring that Barclays had ‘Registered Charges’ dated 8th / 23rd of March 2005. UN4 application was used to criminally get an Order to remove the adjudicated & satisfied UN1 (5HG0776 on 15.4.05 at Harrogate County Court), giving Land Registry a feeble excuse to ‘unfreeze’ the Register.

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO CRIMINALLY CANCEL 13TH OF APRIL 2005 RESTRICTIONS ON 4TH OF MARCH 2008: Restrictions dated 13th of April 2005 were criminally ‘Cancelled’ by the Land Registry on 4th of March 2008, based on the illegal & criminal 16th of January 2008 Order (HC07CO2121) to remove the adjudicated & satisfied UN1 (5HG0776). Even if the Order HC07CO2121 was legal & even if the Land Registry’s cancellation of Mr. Guy’s 13th April 2005 Restrictions was legal, it only allowed UN1 to be removed, leaving all else as was and immediately return the 13th of April 2005 Restrictions date. Restrictions dates were not returned until August 2008, in order for Barclays, its’ agents & Land Registry’s premeditated, organised, criminal plan to take full effect, including hoodwinking both LJ Lloyd & LJ Carnwath in Barclays v Guy A3/2008/0120), heard on 9th of April 2008.

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL REGISTRATION OF 22ND OF JUNE 2004 / 30TH OF JULY 2004 ‘CHARGES’: This criminal cancelation of 13th of April 2005 Restrictions allowed the 16th of May 2006 ‘registrations’ to complete the criminal ‘registration’ of 22nd of June 2004 /30th of July 2004 ‘Charges’, as the Restrictions of 4th of March 2008, could not legally stop the registration of 16th of May 2006 ‘Charges’ just as 13th of April 2005 could. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL REGISTRATION OF 8TH / 23RD OF MARCH 2005 ‘CHARGES’: This criminal cancelation of 13th of April 2005 Restrictions also allowed the 31st of October 2005 ‘registration’ to complete the criminal ‘registration’ of 8th / 23rd of March 2005 ‘Charges’, as the Restrictions of 4th of March 2008, could not legally stop the registration of 31st of October 2005 ‘Charges’ as the 13th of April 2005 Restrictions could. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE ADMINISTRATOR’S WITHDRAWAL OF THEIR OBJECTION TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON 24TH JULY 2008, still under the new restriction date of 4th March 2008, without the live writ 6LS51776 being adjudicated upon? Restriction registration was an illegal act under Adjudicators’ Rule 8 (1, 2, 3) as 6LS51776 / 7472 of 2006 / 6243 of 2007 was at part 20. Restriction illegally & criminally registered on 6th of August 2008. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON ADJUDICATORS’ OFFICE TO CLOSE THEIR FILES: The Adjudicator’s closed their files without discussion or acceptance from Mr. Guy, with illegally stayed live writ 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 / 7472 of 2006 / 6243 of 2007 at part 20, yet to be adjudicated upon. Barclays & its criminal agents could not afford Mr. Guy exposing this highly complex, organised, money laundering, industrial scale fraud, even if it involved breaking many UK’s Constitutional laws. The ‘professionals’ used the civil court as a weapon against Mr. Guy to hide their crimes. Live troublesome writ 6LS51776 / 7472 of 2006 illegally and criminally ‘vanquished’ without having it answered or adjudicated upon. How?

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON DIRECTION FOR DAMAGES: Since the Administrators (KPMG) withdrew their objection to the Restrictions, they automatically also withdrew their objection to the live writ 6LS51776, so the powers to be must pass judgment on 6LS51776 ‘Res Judicata’ and 1) Order the land Registry to restore Mr. Guy as the Registered Owner and give directions for damages as per the terms of the writ 6LS51776 and/or immediately lift the stay on live writ 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 / 7472 of 2006 / 6243 of 2007 under the Adjudicators’ Rule 8 (1, 2, 3) & Land Registry Rule 55 & transfer it to the criminal court, based on ‘Fraus Omni Corrumpit’ with more perpetrators added & all judgments void.

26




The Sovereignty Of The Land Registry Being Put Into Disrepute By All The ‘Protectors’ Of The Land Law Land Registry’s Records Inconclusive On Title numbers LA57319, GM868172, GM748978 & GM632058

Land Registry’s - Mr. John Pownall \ Mr. Richard Hill . We believe Mr. Pownall should be questioned and charged for his determination to perjure on the behalf of his real master & real employers, Barclays and his finances thoroughly investigated. See all the communication with Mr. Pownall. We hereby give Mr. Pownall & Mr. Hill 7 calendar days notice from the date of this report to meet with Mr. Guy for him to clarify all the crimes committed against him by the Land Registry and to do their lawful, legal compulsory duties by:

1. Re-Registering Mr. Guy as the Registered Owner on all the above titles.

2. Removing 22nd June 2004 \ 30th July 2004 ‘Lexi’ (Pearl) ‘Charges’ & associated restrictions on the above titles.

3. Removing 8th March 2005 \ 23rd of March 2005 Barclays ‘Charges’ & associated restrictions on the above titles.

4. Re-register the UN1 back on the Land Register.

5. Put the Restriction back on the Pending Register.

6. Remove the £15m payment of the Land Register.

7. Re-activate live writ 6LS51776 as not yet adjudicated upon or pass judgment, ’Res Judicata’ and give directions for 13 years of damages.

8. Offer Mr. Guy reasonable compensation for 13 years of damages.

Land Registry’s - Mr. Graham Farrant & Ms. Carol Gurajena We hereby give Mr. Farrant & Ms. Gurajena 14 calendar days notice from date of this report to do their lawful compulsory public duties by correcting the Land Register as per 1- 8, if Mr. Pownall & Mr. Hill fail in their legal compulsory duties. Despite countless incontrovertible evidence proofs communications sent to Mr. Graham Farrant & Ms. Gurajena over the past 8 months, incontrovertibly proving rampant unchecked crime within the Land Registry, we have not had any response what-so-ever from either of them, thus we have to question whether they are ‘fit for purpose’. . Secretary of State, Ms. Amber Rudd We hereby give Ms. Amber Rudd 21 calendar days notice from date of this report to meet with Mr. Guy and do her lawful compulsory public duty by correcting the Land Register as per 1- 8, if Mr. Farrant & Ms. Gurajena fail in their legal compulsory duties. Despite countless incontrovertible evidence proofs communications sent to Ms. Amber Rudd over the past 14 months, incontrovertibly proving rampant unchecked crime within the Land Registry, we have not had any response what-so-ever from Ms. Amber Rudd, thus we have to question whether she is ‘fit for purpose’ as she is fully responsible for the Land Registry under her cabinet appointment, paid by the public to protect them, not abuse them. Prime Minister, Mrs. Teressa May

We hereby give the UK’s Prime Minister, Mrs. Teressa May 30 calendar days notice from the date of this report to do her lawful compulsory duty by having above actions immediately carried out and full investigations into all our fraud claims. The Queen

We hereby give the Queen 40 calendar days notice from the date of this report to do her lawful public duty by having the above actions immediately carried out and full investigations into all our very serious fraud claims.

Any and all missed information and all amassed evidence (even un-complete) could & can be easily got from: Download All Files www.dropbox.com Sign in Email [email protected] Password bismillah1

27


“Fraus Omnia Corrumpit” Vitiates All Judgments, Contracts And All Transactions Whatsoever. Criminal Charges Will Be Raised Against Authorities Who Fail To Act As No One/Organisation Is Above The Law!Fraud Is Never Time Barred. Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied. Guy With No Law.

Illegal Stay On Live Writ 6LS51776 Should Be Lifted & Judgment Entered, ‘Res Judicata’

In May 2005, Bermans’ on behalf of Ten Acre Ltd objected to Mr. Guy’s 13th April 2005 Restrictions. 29 In January 2006, Adjudicator Gives Directions To Commence Legal Proceedings. 30 – 31

On 2nd of March 2006, Mr. Guy issues Writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411; 7472 of 2006; 6243 of 2007) claiming:

1. A declaration that he is the sole beneficial owner of the land with title numbers GM632058, GM748978, GM868172 & LA57319, and that he is solely and beneficially entitled thereto;

2. An order that the Defendant do take such steps as are necessary to have the Claimant

registered as the proprietor of the land;

3. Damages for conspiracy to injure the claimant by unlawful means and/or conversion and/or unlawful interference with the Claimant’s economic interests, arising out of Defendant’s wrongful procuring of the registration of the Defendant as proprietor of the said land;

4. Interest.

32 – 33

On 24th July 2008, Administrators withdrew their objection to 13th April 2005 Restriction (6LS51776). 34

On 6th of August 2008, Restriction illegally & criminally registered against all titles. 35

On 27th August 2008, Adjudicators close files without 6LS51776 being adjudicated upon. 36

On 30th of October 2006, in 6LS30411, LJ Lord ordered at point 4 of his judgment, ‘If the defendant fails to comply, then the defence and any Part 20 claim shall automatically struck out and the Claimant be at liberty to enter Judgment for the specific sum claimed & costs.’

37

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON ADJUDICATORS’ OFFICE TO CLOSE THEIR FILES: The Adjudicator’s closed their files without discussion or acceptance from Mr. Guy, with illegally stayed live writ 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 / 7472 of 2006 / 6243 of 2007 at part 20, yet to be adjudicated upon. Barclays & its criminal agents could not afford Mr. Guy exposing this highly complex, organised, money laundering, industrial scale fraud, even if it involved breaking many UK’s Constitutional laws. The ‘professionals’ used the civil court as a weapon against Mr. Guy to hide their crimes. Live troublesome writ 6LS51776 / 7472 of 2006 illegally and criminally ‘vanquished’ without having it answered or adjudicated upon. How? ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON DIRECTION FOR DAMAGES: Since the Administrators (KPMG) withdrew their objection to the Restrictions, they automatically also withdrew their objection to the live writ 6LS51776, so the powers to be must pass judgment on 6LS51776 ‘Res Judicata’ and

1) Order the land Registry to restore Mr. Guy as the Registered Owner and give directions for damages as per the terms of the writ 6LS51776 and/or.

2) Immediately lift the stay on live writ 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 / 7472 of 2006 / 6243 of 2007 under the Adjudicators’ Rule 8 (1, 2, 3) & Land Registry Rule 55 and transfer it to the criminal court, based on ‘Fraus Omni Corrumpit’with more perpetrators added & all judgments void.

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Blatant & Brazen Theft, Followed By A Regimented Denial of Justice By All

1. SUPREME COURT’S ORDER OF CHIEF JUSTICE SCHOFIELD’S PROVES BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT BARCLAYS DO NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL CHARGE YET THE LAW AND ITS OFFICERS ARE ALLOWING THEM TO STEAL MR GUY’S LAND: (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), made in the Supreme Court, to extend priority application on the 12th Day of Oct 2005, “This Order is without prejudice to the rights of any person acquired between the date of the creation of the said legal charge and the date of its actual registration.” Extension of Priorities was granted, based on misrepresentations and perjuries, ‘…the Registrar of Companies’ notification that there are no objections hereto...” There were two objections, namely, 29th of March 2005 UN1 Notices on the Land Register and 13th of April 2005 Restrictions on the Pending Register. The hearing held in private, without giving any notice to all known parties (Mr. Guy) as legally required. A charge must be registered at Companies House within 21 days of its creation. Failing to register the charge on time renders the charge unenforceable & void.

2. GIBRALTAR COMPANY HOUSE, CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION CLEARLY PROVES CHARGE ILLEGALLY REGISTERED, YET LAND REGISTRY’S RECORDS SHOW CHARGE REGISTERED ON 23RD OF MARCH 2005. HOW? “...it is hereby certified that the mortgage or charge created by a Legal Charge dated the 8th day of March 2005 to secure an unlimited amount was registered on the 31st day of October 2005 against Ten Acre Limited in favour of Barclays Bank PLC. Given at Gibraltar this 31st day of October 2005”, clearly proving that the ‘Charge’ was ‘registered’ on 31st October 2005, yet nothing could be registered by the Land Registry, due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restriction, clearly states, “No disposition of the register stated by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of any registered charge is to be registered without a written consent signed by Trevor Guy...”

3. MALORY ENTERPRISES LTD V CHESHIRE HOMES (UK) LTD (2002) & FITZWILLIAM V RICHALL HOLDINGS

SERVICES LTD (2013) showed that fraudulent land transfers will not pass full ownership and that the defrauded proprietor will always stand in front of the Register (Emmet & Farrand on Title). Our view is further confirmed by the Chief Land Registrar and further confirmed by the Head of the Treasury Solicitors Department, Mr Andrew Thurrock, ref Q101315A/T/C3, “For what is worth, the CLR broadly shares the Applicant’s view of the law...case of Knights Construction (March) Limited v Robert Mac Limited...,” Knights v Roberto Mac won on the basis that if you cannot amend the Land Register, then the 2002 Land Act itself was an instrument of fraud. This proves that Mr. Guy is not bankrupt, yet he has been criminally forced into bankruptcy by HMRC. WHY?

4. ORGANISED CRIMINALITY PROVEN BY THE FACILITY AGREEMENT DATED 27TH JULY 2005: Used to

acquire £125m from Mezzanine Finance, based on the attempted theft of Mr. Guy’s security, with wilful intent & knowledge, that they did not have any equitable charge on the land & could never get, due to UN1 & Restrictions. All those who signed this agreement, committed outright chargeable acts, yet to be charged. Their wrongful actions criminally created Mr. Guy’s seven insolvencies and 11 Repossession Orders. All Mr. Guy’s bankruptcies applications were by the lawyers mentioned & involved within this criminal agreement. Jordon’s Business Information Services search clearly shows that they were no charges registered against Ten Acre Limited (Gibraltar) on 14th of October 2005. The UK State & Its ‘Authorities’ are acting as gang rapists.

5. ILLEGALLY STAYED LIVE WRIT DATED THE 2ND MARCH 2006, REF 6LS51776 / 6LS304111 / 7472 OF 2006,

6243 OF 2007): This writ is still live and the writ states, “The Claimant (Mr. Guy) Claims 1) A declaration that he is the sole beneficial owner of the land with title numbers GM632058, GM748978, GM868172 & LA57319, and that he is solely and beneficially entitled thereto; 2) An order that the Defendant do take such steps as are necessary to have the Claimant registered as the proprietor of the land; 3) Damages for conspiracy to injure the claimant by unlawful means and/or conversion and/or unlawful interference with the Claimant’s economic interests, arising out of Defendant’s wrongful procuring of the registration of the Defendant as proprietor of the said land; 4) Interest.” The stay on this live writ has to be lifted and judgment entered ‘Res Judicata’, as the administrator withdrew their objection and/or have it transferred to the criminal court, with additional parties added to the writ. 4th of March 2008 application to register a new restriction was a calculated, criminal, chargeable act by Mr. A. Megaw & the Land Registry.

ALL THE STATEMENTS OF TRUTH IN 50+ COURT CASES BY ALL THE PERPETRATORS, WERE CRIMINAL AS THEY WERE FILLED WITH PERJURIES & MISREPRESENTATIONS: All perpetrators perjured (knowledge) that charge was registered in March 2005 with criminal intent. Both the deliverance of fraudulent documents and using their position to hide a crime are a clear abuse of the Civil Court process in perverting the true course of justice. This travesty of justice has attempted to make theft, legal at law, right under the noses of all the UK’s authorities, including the present Prime Minister, Mrs. Teresa May, National Crime Agency & Serious Fraud Office, making all of them ‘unfit for purpose’.

38




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Mr. Guy’s Criminal Bankruptcy (HMRC v Guy (1101 2015 & 64 of 2015) (1)

POLITICS IS THE ART OF LOOKING FOR TROUBLE, FINDING IT EVERYWHERE, DIAGNOSING IT INCORRECTLY AND APPLYING NO REMEDIES: Mr Guy has £20m+ proven asset (GM748978, GM868172, GM632058, LA57319 in Newton Heath, Manchester) under Statute Law cannot legally be stolen or taken from him, as his Restrictions cannot legally be removed, as confirmed by the Land Registry’s letter dated 7th of May 2008, Land Registry reference GM632058/D/234/MW/S5_MC, “However the registration of such sales would not be processed until pending applications have been dealt with”, yet horrifically, he was criminally made bankrupt, for an illegal “pre birth” tax of £48k, by the Treasury, unlawfully helping Barclays, Lloyds TSB, HBOS, KPMG, DLA & Linklaters, among others, bury their criminal, uncharged, fraud activities. Politicians promising to protect the public interest and uphold the law, unlawfully remain totally muted to the rampant criminality prevalent in Civil Courts, bringing both the Judiciary and the Constitution into serious dispute. ‘Protectors’ who abrogate their lawful duties, must be forced to resign & charged for not protecting our important values. NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE & TREASURY COMMITTING CRIMES: Since 2009, Mr Guy has been in an IVA, trying to buy out his criminal bankruptcy, expired on the 15th of August 2016. He had & has several investors ready to pay off his bankruptcy subject to an audit, but he could not get an audit from his first trustee, namely Moore Stevens, nor can he get it from his second trustee, Mr. Kevin Lucas of Lucas Johnston. Official Receiver, Mr. Christopher Brown is not interested and does not even have the courtesy of a reply, like the rest of UK’s ‘authorities’, making the National Audit Office fully responsible. The Treasury criminally broke rank to action to create yet another criminal, rushed bankruptcy. How can a man be in an IVA and still be made legally bankrupt? Mr Guy is ready to buy out his criminal bankruptcy, unlawfully denied by the state of UK for the past 8 yrs.

ROUTE TO TITLE LEGALLY DECLARED FRAUDULENT AND CRIMINALITY PROVEN:

1. STATUTE Power of Attorney. No party had any power of Attorney to do any transaction on Mr. Guy’s behalf. 2. STATUTE stolen TRI Form - legally declared ‘worthless piece of paper’ (case HCO7CO2121). 3. STATUTE DSI Form - illegally discharged without consent, authority or any notification at all. 4. STATUTE SDLT Form – fraudulent and not found on HMRC’s system. Mr. Guy’s tax liability £4.1m or £48,000? 5. STATUTE API Form - legally declared ‘prima facia fraud’ (Ch/2007/app/521). 6. STATUTE Barclays’ ‘Charge’ is registered at the Land Registry on the 23rd of March 2008 and used to perjure in

all court cases is an illegal void criminal charge as the true attempted ‘Charge’ date as per Mr. Justice Schofield Order (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar) was only granted on 31st of October 2005 as stated, “...Legal Charge dated the 8th day of March 2005 to secure an unlimited amount was registered on the 31st day of October 2005...”. And further it states that, “This Order is without prejudice to the rights of any person acquired between the dare of the creation of the said legal charge and the date of its actual registration” Mr. Guy’s Restriction dated 13th of April 2005 prevented any ‘Charges’ from being ‘registered’, making the bankruptcy illegal & outright criminal.

7. BARCLAYS CLAIM (CRIMINAL), YET CRIMINALLY AIDED BY THE JUDICIARY & THE LAND REGISTRY: ➢ Land Registry’s Rule 55 states that, ‘each application must be heard in the order it was received’, so why did the Land

Registry criminally allow the Administrators’ withdrawal of their objection on the 24th of July 2008 & allow criminal Barclays’ Claim (No ‘Charges’ whatsoever) without first removing the Stay on the live writ 6LS51776?

➢ Fraud cases cannot be dealt with summary or oral hearing as they must be heard by a jury as judged by 8 Law Lords in HIH Insurance V Chase Manhattan‘s Judgment.

➢ Barclays Claim is criminally based on section 58 of the 2002 Land Law Act. Pearl v HCW (4MA70055), Lexi v Pannone (HCO8C01319). Barclays Knowledge Before they took their ‘Charge’ & Barclays’s Complicity proves that Section 58 cannot be legally applied in this case, unlawfully ignored by the Judiciary. Northern Bank Ltd v Henry [1981] IR 1 was dismissed due to constructive notice as incontrovertibly proved throughout.

➢ Mallory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes’ (1983-2002) & Fitzwilliam v Richall Holding Services Ltd (2013) proves that a defrauded proprietor always remains the beneficial owner and stands in front of the Register.

➢ Our view is further confirmed by the Chief Land Registrar and further confirmed by the Head of the Treasury Solicitors Department, Mr Andrew Thurrock backed by Lee Jones Charles (Head of Division) and Caroline Harold (team leader), under reference Q101315A/T/C3, “For what is worth, the CLR broadly shares the Applicant’s view of the law...case of Knights Construction (March) Limited v Robert Mac Limited...,” Knights v Roberto Mac won on the basis that if you cannot amend the Land Register, then the 2002 Land Act itself was an instrument of fraud.

➢ Barclays, KPMG’s & DLA’s criminal intent further proved as Lord Schofield’s Order (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar) was ignored with intent, “And it is ordered that the Applicants do deliver an office copy of this order to the Registrar of the Companies”, which we believe, they finally did this on 16th of May 2006, however 16th of May 2006 could not be registered due to Mr. Guy’s Restrictions dated 13th of April 2005 terms & live Writ 6LS51776.

39




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Mr. Guy’s Criminal Bankruptcy (HMRC v Guy (1101 2015 & 64 of 2015) (2)

8. ARTICLE 6, SECTION 35(3)(G) OF THE FIRST PROTOCOL OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 states that each and every person has a right to a fair trial, criminally denied to Mr Guy, by DJ Hart, Justice Rose & DJ Woods.

9. ARITICLE 1, RULE 2 OF THE FIRST PROTOCOL OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 (6, 43), CRIMINALLY ABUSED BY DJ HART AND JUSTICE ROSE in making Mr. Guy bankrupt, over perhaps an illegal ‘pre birth tax’. DJ Hart cited Article 1 of the First Protocol Rule 3, stating that it is obligatory that the tax must be paid. However she failed Rule 2 of the same act, which takes president over Rule 3. The 89 pages of fraudulent Statute documents presented by Mr. Guy were not “irrelevant”, as judged by DJ Hart (backed by Justice Rose), but highly relevant Statute documents, incontrovertibly proving that Mr. Guy’s Restrictions dated 13th of April 2005 on the +£20m Ten Acres Lane land are Absolute DJ Woods further condemns Mr. Guy with her criminal extension ruling on 4th Jan 2017 (64 of 2015). To not judge the vital documents further contravenes Rule 1, ‘Duty to the Court First’, especially as these same documents prove very serious organised criminality among many prominent ‘professionals’ with terrorist financing, tax evading and money laundering (£50m+ (£125m)) proven from reliable court documents and playing a major part in this premeditated, organised, industrial scale fraud.

10. LAND REGISTRY’S RECORDS CONCLUSIVE CRIMINALLY STATED BY DJ HART, BACKED BY JUSTICE ROSE criminally ignoring High Court’s rulings in Barclays v Guy (HCO7CO2121 - A3/2008/0120) on 9th of April 2008, Lord Justice Lloyd on page 4, point 10 of his Judgment stated, “...a reasonable arguable basis for saying that he (Guy) would be entitled, if allegations are made out, to have the Register rectified...” High Court judgment clearly stating that the land could go back in Mr. Guy’s name, but the ‘Charges’ would remain, criminally ignored by DJ Hart, Justice Rose, DJ Woods (64 of 2015) and further also ignored by the Land Registry with criminal intent.

11. RESTRICTION ABSOLUTE: If the registered owner was changed as it legally should be and if the Registry then

applied the correct charge date of 31st of October as per Lord Schofield’s Judgment (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), “…Legal Charge dated the 8th day of March 2005 to secure an unlimited amount was registered on the 31st day of October 2005... ‘ & “…Order is without prejudice to the rights of any person acquired between the date of the creation of the said legal charge and the date of its actual registration’ than the ‘Charge’ is not only criminal but void.

12. HOW CAN THE RESTRICTION BE REMOVED LEGALLY? Barclays through their ‘Sergeant in Arms’ KPMG, DLA

& Linklaters are criminally trying to remove the Restrictions based on the criminal & illegal Mowschenson’s Order 24 that legally cannot be removed, as the criminal, illegal Order 24 cannot be exercised until the stay on the live writ GLS51776 has been lifted and judgment entered ‘res judicata’. Further you cannot remove a Restriction with a UN4 application, the Restriction can only be removed with an RX3 application. The administrators on behalf of Ten Acres Limited withdrew their RX3 objection on 24th of July 2008, without first lifting the stay on live writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411,7472 OF 2007, 6243 of 2007), a criminal act; changing the Land Register without a court order is another criminal act; unlawfully ignored by all ministers & all authorities.

13. FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT INVALIDATES ALL ASPECTS OF ANY JUDICIAL DECISIONS as judged by 8

Law Lords in HIH Insurance v Chase Manhattan Bank ([2003] UKHL 6) criminally ignored by all ‘protectors’.

14. UNDER THE 2006 FRAUD ACT, CHAPTER 35, 1-10 LEGALLY UNDER STATUTE LAW, THIS CASE HAS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CRIMINAL COURT so we can really expose the fraud. DJ Hart, Justice Rose & DJ Woods should be immediately suspended, with their finances and past judgments involving banks fully investigated. We cannot have ‘Judges’ that do not know how to adhere to the law in their judgments. It is ‘judges’ like these three judges that allow the banks to continue committing serious crimes and completely corrupt the Civil Courts, bringing the Judiciary into total disrepute. ‘Principal Protectors’ must act immediately to rectify their wrongs if we are to avoid full blown campaigns, binging shame to the UK, its ministers & all its authorities.

15. STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL EU & UK’S LAWS ARE BEING DISTORTED, DERAILED AND/OR

DISREGARDED WITH IMPUNITY BY ALL ‘PROTECTORS’: 1) Sovereignty of EU’S & UK’s Constitutions. 2) Sovereignty of the Human Rights 1998, Article 1, Rule 2 & 6 of the First Protocol. 3) Sovereignty of the Judiciary. 4) Sovereignty of the Land Act 2002. 5) Sovereignty of the Insolvency Act 1986. 6) Sovereignty of Contempt of Court 1981. 7) Sovereignty of the Status of Equitable Interest after 1925. 8) Sovereignty of National Security. 9) Sovereignty of 21m home owners. 10) Failed to report Tsunami of serious crimes and ongoing fraud to various authorities, therefore they must be charged under the 2006 Fraud Act, using position to hide a crime.

40




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Trustee’s Will & Ability To Handle A Case Of This Magnitude

1. DOES LUCAS JOHNSTON / MR. LUCAS HAVE NECESSARY INSURANCE FOR A CASE OF THIS MAGNITUDE? 2. TRUSTEE MR. K. LUCAS HAS FAILED TO DO ANY WORK WHATSOEVER OVER HIS FIRST YEAR AS

CONFIRMED BY HIS OWN ADMISSION in the various emails sent to Mr. Guy between 5th - 30th of January 2017. Mr. Lucas stated on 5th of January 2017, after he had perjured in case number 64 of 2015, heard on 27th of October 2016 and 4th of January 2017, “I have a statutory obligation to investigate... Given that the right of action re Ten Acres does not appear to me to vest in me...” Then he states on 5th of January 2017 (11.33am), “Trevor, I have just had a conversation with someone very helpful in the Official Receiver’s office in Leeds. According to their records your 2009 bankruptcy was not annulled.” Then he writes in next email on the 5th of January 2017 (7pm), “Ten Acres claim: We need to establish where the claim lies...” Then he writes in the next email on 10th of January 2017, “...letter issues by Moore Stephens that suggests an annulment was made on 12 April 2010...” Then he writes in the next email on 23rd of January 2017, “...I still have no proof that your previous bankruptcy has been annulled...” Then he writes on 30th of January 2017, “...This is the bankruptcy order from the Leeds County Court that many people have alluded to but have previously been unable to provide... Therefore I will now need to look into the claim and/or any possibility of selling the right of action.” This explicitly proves that Mr. Lucas Johnston did not do any work whatsoever, yet DJ Woods awards them cost and unlawfully penalises Mr. Guy. From what we know, DJ Woods has not reported Mr. Kevin Lucas and any of his councils for their perjuries and misrepresentations. DJ Woods & Mr. K. Lucas have put the Judiciary into disrepute. The above also shows that the Official Receiver, Mr. Christopher Brown, representing the National Audit Office also has to be reprimanded and/or replaced as he has put the National Audit Office into disrepute. The ‘Protectors’ must immediately suspend & carry out full investigations into DJ Woods, Lucas Johnston, inc. Mr. Kevin Lucas & Mr. Christopher Brown or are they ‘unfit for purpose?

3. DESPITE SEVERAL REQUESTS, MR. LUCAS HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE AUDITED CREDITORS LIST for Mr. Guy’s financier to buy out the bankruptcy & Mr. Lucas does not respond to Mr. Guy’s telephone or email messages.

4. TRUSTEE HAS FAILED TO PUT ON A RESTRICTION ON MR. GUY’S LAND (main asset), but he has put on a restriction on the house. Why? The Trustee by law must protect all of Mr. Guy’s assets for his creditors.

5. TRUSTEE HAS FAILED TO PUT THE PERPETRATORS ON TRESPASS NOTICE, as per professor Farrand’s advice (author of Emmet & Farrand on title), based on Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd (2002) (EWCA civ 151) & Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services Ltd (2013) (HC11C01929 and HC11C04534). Why?

6. TRUSTEE HAS FAILED TO CONTACT ANY OF THE PERPETRATORS to challenge their claims. 7. TRUSTEE FAILED TO CONTACT ADJUDICATOR’S OFFICE on their unlawful act of closing files on writ 6LS51776. 8. TRUSTEE HAS FAILED TO TAKE ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL STAY ON THE LIVE WRIT, issued of 2nd

March 2006, 6LS51776 (6LS304111; 7472 of 2006; 6243 of 2007). Failed to contact Courts & Tribunals’ office.

9. TRUSTEE HAS FAILED TO APPLY FOR JUDGMENT, ‘RES JUDICATA’ ON THE LIVE WRIT 6LS51776 (6243 of 2007) and get direction for 13 years of damages, as the administrators withdrew their objection on 24th of July 2008 and/or have the writ transferred to the criminal courts with many more perpetrators to be added.

10. TRUSTEE HAS FAILED TO CONTACT THE LAND REGISTRY, to clarify Land Registry’s position. 11. TRUSTEE FAILED TO RAISE COURT ACTION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ALL MR. GUY’S BANKRUPTCIES. 12. TRUSTEE FAILED TO CONTACT POLICE, THE SFO & ALL OTHER AUTHORITIES AS PER HIS LEGAL DUTY. 13. TRUSTEE MR. K. LUCAS HAS UNLAWFULLY SUCCEEDED IN CONTACTING MR SIMON STAFFORD MICHAEL

WITHOUT AUTHORITY, to find out on what basis is he helping Mr. Guy & he also made enquiries on what basis are the whistle blowers, White Knights Consortium are helping him. Mr Guy has never authorised the Trustee to contact anyone on his behalf as he never signed authorisation form, so on what basis is the Trustee contacting them? Since he contacted them, should he not asked for council’s advice and looked into all very serious allegations made by WKC?

14. NONE OF THE REAL CREDITORS HAVE RESPONDED TO TRUSTEE RE HIS APPOINTMENT & COSTS. 15. TRUSTEE REFUSES TO COMMUNICATE WITH MR. GUY’S REPRESENTATIVES, White Knights Consortium. TRUSTEE MR K. LUCAS DOING HIS BEST TO UNLAWFULLY TARNISH MR GUY’S NAME: Trustee falsely claims Mr. Guy is not co-operating because he cannot provide weekly gas & electric amount and such like. He falsely claims Mr. Guy is hiding assets re ‘Creative Estates Limited’, which has been bankrupt for 11 years with an appointed Trustee. He is also falsely digging into dormant companies such as Buxingham Investment Limited, trying to insinuate link with Luqman. The Trustee states only he can raise actions, yet he has no intension of raising any actions & he unlawfully also prevents Mr. Guy raising action at his own cost. Trustee thinks he is ‘King John’ and can do what he wants. We demand that the NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (NAO) gives us a proper Trustee, not ‘professionals’, guised in suit of civility, who underneath their skins are nothing, but a bunch of criminally organised barbarians, that abuse the law set out by Parliament with impunity. We put NAO on notice that we hold NAO responsible for any steps taken by the Trustee in Mr. Guy’s affairs.

41




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The Askewed Lucidity Of The Judiciary, Criminally Ignoring Laws

FRAUD FOUND IN VARIOUS CIVIL COURT CASES: Chief Master Winegarten’s Judgment (8 0f 2007) 26th July 2007, found API not properly executed. The AP1 Form was also legally declared fraudulent by LJ Henderson in Ch/2007/app/521 on 6th of Dec 2007. The TR1 Form was legally declared fraudulent by LJ Lloyd & LJ Carnwath A3/2008/0120 on 9th of April 2008. LJ Blackburn (HC09C00788) on 24th of April 2012 found all the transfers fraudulent & all lawyers guilty. Fraud was also found in Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), Pearl v HCW (4MA70055) and in Lexi v Pannone (HC08C01319). Fraud was also found by the Serious Fraud Office. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ VITIATES ALL JUDGMENT, CONTRACTS AND ALL TRANSACTION WHATSOEVER as judged by eight L , paragraph 77, “….the action is based on the allegation of fraud, and no subtlety of language, no craft or machinery in the form of contract, can estop a person who complains that he has been defrauded from having that question of fact submitted to a jury.” At paragraph 78, Lord Loreburn LC said, “I will not say a man himself innocent may not under any circumstances, however peculiar, guard himself by apt and express clauses from liability for the fraud of his own agents.” ‘VOID AB INITIO’ MEANS TO BE TREATED AS INVALID FROM THE OUTSET (SERIOUSLY OFFENDS LAW): In law, void means of no legal effect. A document or transaction which is void is of no legal effect whatsoever: an absolute nullity - the law treats it as if it had never existed or happened. The term “void ab initio”, which means "to be treated as invalid from the outset," comes from adding the Latin phrase “ab initio” (from the beginning) as a qualifier. For example, in many jurisdictions where a person signs a contract under duress, that contract is treated as being “void ab initio”. THE ADJUDICATORS’ 8 - (1, 2, 3) RULE QUITE STATES THAT THE 16TH OF JANUARY 2008 CASE WAS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE, UNTIL 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 / 7472 OF 2006 / 6243 OF 2007 WAS ADJUDICATED UPON: 8–(1) This rule applies where the Adjudicator has directed a party under Section 110(1) to commence Court proceedings on the whole of the matter. 8–(2) Once he has received notice under rule 7(2)(a) that court proceedings have been issued, the adjudicator must adjourn all of the proceedings before him pending the outcome of the court proceeding. LAND REGISTRY RULE 55, CLEARLY STATES THAT EACH APPLICATION MUST BE DEALT IN THE ORDER IT WAS RECEIVED: The priority of applications is governed by Rule 55 of the Land Registration Rules 2003. This means that each application must be dealt with in the order it was received. So if the earlier' application is being held up by court proceedings as was in this case, the later applications cannot be processed until the initial court proceedings have been concluded. Flaunting Rule 55 carries a five years sentence. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO REGISTER A CHARGE AT COMPANIES HOUSE ON TIME: Under the provisions of s.410 of the 1985 Companies Act (now, in identical terms, s.889 of the Companies Act 2006), a charge must be registered at Companies House within 21 (30) days of its creation. If the Charge is not registered within time then the charge is unenforceable, and void against a Liquidator, Administrator and any other creditor of the Company. An application can be made to register a charge out of time if it does not prejudice the position of other parties, such as Mr. Guy. It is necessary to serve a copy of the application and supporting evidence on all known parties that are or maybe effected by the application and on the Company. Further the Company has to be solvent with 14 days old solvency statement. Ten Acre Limited never traded so how can it be solvent? DEFRAUDED PROPRIETOR ALWAYS REMAINS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER & STANDS IN FRONT OF THE REGISTER: Mallory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes’ (1983-2002) ((2002) ch 216) & Fitzwilliam v Richall Holding Services Ltd (2013) (HC11C01929 & HC11C04534) cases proved that a defrauded proprietor always remains the beneficial owner & stands in front of the Register irrespective. Our view is further confirmed by the Chief Land Registrar and further confirmed by the Head of the Treasury Solicitors Department, Mr Andrew Thurrock, Lee Jones Charles (Head of Division) & Caroline Harold (team leader), under ref Q101315A/T/C3, “For what is worth, the CLR broadly shares the Applicant’s view of the law...case of Knights Construction (March) Limited v Robert Mac Limited...,” Knights v Roberto Mac won on the basis that if you cannot amend the Land Register, then the 2002 Land Act itself was an instrument of fraud. JUDICIAL REVIEW: If this case does not demand a Judicial Review, then there is no case in the world past & present would ever meet this criteria. Justice Rose, DJ Hart, DJ Woods, Attorney General, Justice Minister & Secretary of State, all have a legal compulsory duty to force this case for a full Judicial Review, failing which they are ‘Not fit for purpose’. If the PM Mrs. T. May does not immediately action rectification of the Register, she is also ‘Not fit for purpose’.

42




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Justice Rose, DJ Hart & DJ Woods Will & Ability To Handle Such A Case A JOB OF A JUDGE IS TO CONCLUDE CASES ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE BASED JUDGMENTS OF JUSTICE, contrarily we find Justice Rose, DJ Hart & DJ Woods, backed by ‘Sir’ Brian Leverson, (Impotent President of HMs Courts & Tribunal, cannot do anything, ‘because of the long standing constitutional convention which prevents any judge from commenting on individual cases, whether or not the judge has adjudicated on that case, and whether these are pending, ongoing, or have concluded’) have unlawfully failed Mr. Guy, his creditors, sovereignty of Judiciary & sovereignty of UK’s constitution. SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF THIS ONGOING COLOSSAL FRAUD HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY PRESENTED TO DJ WOODS SINCE 2005, and yet she has wittingly and/or unwittingly, miserably failed to address the real issues, the law and injustices in Mr. Guys’ case. Despite many correspondences sent to DJ Woods, with elapsed abnormal length of time, we have failed to receive any response what-so-ever from her, which has to be unlawful as she is a public officer, making her ‘unfit for purpose’. Justice Rose, DJ Hart & DJ Woods have all failed in their professional legal duties:

1. We find Justice Rose, DJ Hart & DJ Woods, guilty of bewildering & truant cognition by forcefully perplexing the poignant legal protocols, to deny a peaceful, procedural plight of Mr. Trevor Guy, under ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit”. All of them have superseded & overridden a higher hierarchy rulings of 8 law Lords (HIH Insurance V Chase Manhattan Bank ([2003] UKHL 6, paragraph 77, “the action is based on the allegation of fraud, and no subtlety of language, no craft or machinery in the form of contract, can estop a person who complains that he has been defrauded from having that question of fact submitted to a jury”), without lawful authority or legal allowance, bringing the Judicial Protocol and the Judiciary into disrepute.

2. Failed Rule 1, 2 & 6 of the Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights Act 1998.

3. Failed in their legal capacity to offer immediate recourse & remedy: a) Failed to Order Judicial Review and, b) Failed to Order Trustee to contact Land Registry asking for their files on the land for Judicial Review and, c) Failed to Order Mr. S. Stafford of Pump Court Chambers to give his legal advice on Mr. Guy’s case and, d) Failed to Order the Trustee to give Mr. Guy very basic living allowance and, e) Failed to Order a retrial due to Trustee’s perjuries, thus failed to protect Mr. Guy and all his creditors and, f) Failed to report the Trustee and his Councils (Taylors conflicted) for professional misconduct & perjuries, g) Failed to Order cancellation Mr. Guy’s illegal & criminal bankruptcies & failed to initiate new IVA and. h) Failed to Order the Trustee to put a restriction on Mr. Guy’s lawfully owned land and, i) Failed to Order Trustee to give audited Bankruptcy figures to enable Mr. Guy to buyout his bankruptcy and, j) Failed to give permission to strike out the fraudulent Statute documents, including removing £15m and, k) Failed to give permission to strike out all the illegal & criminal ‘Charges’ from the Land Register and, l) Failed to give permission to issue Order 24 writ to strike out the fraudulent 12th of October 2005 Judgment

(Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), gained on perjuries & against rules of registration and, m) Failed to give permission to issue Order 24 writ to strike out 16th Jan 2008 Judgment (HC07C02121) and, n) Failed to remove or give permission to remove the illegal stay on live writ, issued of 2nd of March 2006,

6LS51776 (6LS304111; 7472 of 2006; 6243 of 2007) and enter judgment, ‘Res Judicata’ and, o) Failed to Order the Land Registry to restore Mr. Guy as the Registered Owner on his land as per High court

ruling in Barclays v Guy (A3/2008/0120 – 9th April 2008) and as per the writ 6LS51776 and, p) Failed to give direction for 13 years of damages, as the administrators withdrew their objection on 24th of July

2008 and, q) Failed to have the case transferred to the criminal courts as per ([2003] UKHL 6) and, r) Failed to give permission to issue a criminal writ against the Land Registry to include Graham Farrant, Carol

Gujrana, John Pownall, Richard Hill & others and, s) Illegally approved Trustee’s court fees for 64 of 2015 on 27th of October 2016 & 4th of January 2017 and, t) Failed to contact police, the SFO & all other authorities as per their legal lawful duties.

BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT HAVE THE POWER TO PETITION THE QUEEN FOR THE REMOVAL OF A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OR THE COURT OF APPEAL. This power originates in the 1701 Act of Settlement and is now contained in section 11(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. This case must be dealt with lawfully and justly for the sovereign protection of our morals, the Constitution, the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Land Registry and our policing forces. Failure to address the law makes us more corrupt than the most corrupt country in the world. This case clearly shows menacing markings of a failed state, directed by the uncontrollable power of the criminal banks, auditors & lawyers.

43




The Sovereignty Of The Judiciary Being Put Into Disrepute By All The ‘Protectors’ Of The Law Judge Woods – Harrogate County Court

We hereby give DJ Woods seven calendar days from the date of this report to arrange a meeting with Mr. Guy so he can fully clarify everything connected to his case and to do her public, lawful, legal, compulsory duty by:

1. Ordering Judicial Review on the whole fraud and all judgments and, 2. Order a Restriction on title numbers LA57319, GM868172, GM748978, GM632058 and, 3. Annul bankruptcy extension Order in 64 of 2015, including annulling all Trustee’s ‘costs’ & Order retrial and, 4. Annul Mr. Guy’s bankruptcy & Order a new IVA, under the supervision of the National Audit Office and, 5. Remove the stay on live writ 6LS51776 (6243 of 2007) and enter judgment, ‘Res Judicata’, giving direction for 13

years of damages and/or have it transferred to the criminal court by adding more perpetrators. 6. Issue an Order to the Land Registry to restore Mr. Guy as the Registered Owner on title numbers LA57319,

GM868172, GM748978, GM632058 and also Order removal of all the ‘Charges’ (restrictions) on the said titles. 7. Order the Police/CPS/SFO to fully investigate & report on all the fraud committed against Mr. Guy, against the

Judiciary, against the Land Registry & against the State of UK, by the perpetrators within a practical timeframe. HMs Courts & Tribunal President Sir Brian Leverson & Justice Rose We hereby give Sir Brian Leverson & Justice Rose, 14 calendar days to reverse Judge Wood’s Order & report DJ Woods if she fails in her lawful compulsory duty to follow up on our lawful demands, lawfully demanded of DJ Wood. Attorney General Mr. Jeremy White We hereby give Attorney General Mr. Jeremy White 21 calendar days notice from the date of this report to meet Mr. Guy and immediately halt all activities in Mr. Guy’s affairs and put his complete affairs under Judicial Review, after restoring Mr. Guy as the Registered Owner of his land and all charges & restrictions removed. You are responsible for the SFO & CPS, both these departments are ‘un-reparative’ and/or completely ‘incompetent’ at handling the rampant crime within the Land Registry and the Judiciary. Despite countless communications sent to both parties over the past 14 months, we have yet to receive any meaningful responses what-so-ever from either, making both of them totally ‘unfit for purpose’. We respectfully demand that you ask both SFO & CPS to carryout full investigations into all our allegations and make accurate amends. We also respectfully demand that you give full directive in each & every part of Mr. Guy’s affairs. Justice Minister Ms. Liz Truss We hereby give Justice Minister Ms. Liz Truss 21 calendar days notice from the date of this report to meet Mr. Guy and immediately halt all activities in his affairs, putting his complete affairs under Judicial Review, after restoring him as the Registered Owner of his land and all charges (restrictions) removed. Ms. Liz Truss you have no other legal alternative, but to intervene by investigating & rectifying boulders of incontrovertible, rampant, proven, criminality, coarsing throughout 50 plus judicial trials and protect the sovereignty of the Judiciary. Despite countless incontrovertible evidence communications sent to you over the past 8 months, we have yet to receive any responses what-so-ever from you. National Audit Office Mr. Amyas Morse We ask the National Audit Office’s Mr Amyas Morse to immediately to meet with Mr. Guy and take control of his affairs as all responsible government departments are tainted in open criminality and they are protecting ‘one of us’ at all costs. Prime Minister, Mrs. Teressa May We hereby give the UK’s Prime Minister, Mrs. Teressa May 30 calendar days notice from the date of this report to do her lawful compulsory duty by having the above actions immediately carried out & full investigations into all our fraud claims. The Queen We hereby give the Queen 40 calendar days notice from the date of this report to do her lawful public duty by having the above actions immediately carried out and full investigations into all our very serious fraud claims.

44




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ Incontrovertible Proof Files Sent To All Relevant Authorities, Ignored By All There Is No Excuse For Any Authority To Say They Didn’t Know Or Files Not Received As All Publically Available!

Mr Trevor Guy on 07805 939 873 email [email protected] www.tgproperties.co.uk Download All Files www.dropbox.com Sign in Email [email protected] Password bismillah1

Or Go to www.yahoo.co.uk Sign In Email [email protected] Password bismillah1

Date File Name File Found In Dropbox 18.01.16 SAR Report By The White Knights Consortium (63 pages) Introduction To Treason - File 2 30.01.16 Guy’s Letter To SFO Stating Their Report Is a Joke (11 Pages) Authorities/Government\Policing- File 13 17.02.16 Bent Britain, Courtesy of ‘Barclays Complicity’ (53 pages) Barclays - File 15 19.02.16 Rescind on Face Criminal Charges – Justice Rose (8 pages) Illegal Orchestrated Bankruptcy - File 11 24.02.16 Pearl v HCW Proves Barclays/Pannone Criminality (33 Pages) Was Luqman The Real Mastermind File 14 5.03.16 Lexi v Pannone Proves Barclays/Pannone/KPMG (36 Pages) Pannone’s Complicity - File 19

12.03.16 Barclays v Guy – Mowschenson’s Illegal Judgment (43 Pages) Barclays v Guy Illegal Judgment – File 10 16.03.16 Yorkshire Police 6 Page Letter (6 pages) Authorities/Policing/Yorkshire Police – File 13 23.03.16 Barclays v Guy – Lloyds Illegal Judgment (68 Pages) Barclays v Guy Illegal Judgment – File 10 10.04.16 KPMG’s Complicity (21 Pages) KPMG’s Complicity – File 16 24.04.16 Pannone’s Complicity (27 pages) Pannone’s Complicity – File 19 29.04.16 Various Authorities Responses To Do Nothing Authorities Complicity - File 13 8.05.16 Guy Letter to Prime Minister Authorities/Government\Prime Minister F13

12.05.16 Email Request To Buy Out Bankruptcy Need Creditors’ Audit NO RESPOSE FROM TRUSTEE 15.5.16 Prime Minister’s 4 Letters To Mr. Guy (4 Pages) Authorities/Government\Prime Minister F13 15.5.16 Treasury On Behalf Of Government To Guy (1 Page) Authorities/Government\Treasury- File 13

30.05.16 Case Summarised On 1 Page (1 Page) Index – File 1 17.06.16 Live Writ 6LS51776 Illegally Stayed (2 Pages) + More Illegally Stayed Live writ - File 8 30.06.16 UK Put On Criminal Notice Prime Minister & Rest (4 Pages) Authorities Complicity - File 13 9.08.16 Advice Sought File (48 Pages) Barclays No Enforceable Charge – File 5

25.09.16 Criminality By & At Land Registry (68 Pages) Criminality At Land Registry – File 6 26.09.16 Route To Title Criminal In Its Entirety (66 Pages) Route Of Title Criminal - File 3 28.09.16 Letter To Trustee To Continue Bankruptcy & Ask Permission Illegal Orchestrated Bankruptcy/Files File 11 18.10.16 TG & WKC Letters To Land Registry (10 Pages) Criminality At Land Registry - File 6 22.10.16 Forms Filled In & Sent (10 pages) Illegal Orchestrated Bankruptcy/Files File 11 23.10.16 TG Defense Against The Trustee (9 pages) Illegal Bankruptcy/Bank Extension File 11 27.10.16 Redeeming Title & Trust In Law (65 pages) Illegal Bankruptcy/Bank Extension File 11 2.11.16 WKC to Land Registry – Remove All Fraudulent Charges Criminality By & At Land Registry File 6 4.11.16 Criminal Letter By Land Registry To Guy (9 pages) Criminality By & At Land Registry File 6

28.11.16 WKC to Land Registry Explaining All. (15 pages) Criminality By & At Land Registry File 6 2.12.16 Land Registry To Guy (3 pages) Criminality By & At Land Registry File 6 9.12.16 WKC To Land Registry (2 pages) Criminality By & At Land Registry File 6 9.12.16 UK State Put On Notice Of Crime (15 pages) Authorities Complicities File 13 9.12.16 Prime Minister’s Office Response (1 page) Authorities Complicities/Government File 13 9.12.16 HMS Customs & Excise’s Response (1 page) Authorities Complicities/Government File 13

12.12.16 WKC To Land Registry (1 page) Criminality By & At Land Registry File 6 4.01.16 Full Harrogate Judgment Case 64 of 2015 (56 pages) Illegal Bankruptcy/Illegal Extension File 11

16.01.16 WKC Respond To Trustee (53 Pages) Illegal Bankruptcy/Illegal Extension File 11 Introduction To Treason File 2 Introduction To Treason File 2 Abrogation Of Duty File 2B Introduction To Treason File 2 Route of Title, Criminal In Its Entirety File 3 Route of Title Criminal File 3 Barclays Knowledge Before They Took Charge File 4 Barclays Knowledge File 4 Barclays Have No Equitable Charge File 5 Barclays Have No Equitable Charge File 5 Criminality By & At The Land Registry File 6 Criminality At Land Registry File 6 27th July 2008 Agreement Proves Organised Criminality File 7 Loan Agreement Proves Criminality File 7 Live writ 6LS51776 Illegally Stayed File 8 Live Writ 6LS51776 Illegally Stayed File 8

45




‘Protectors’, Land Registry & The Judiciary Guilty Of Abrogating Their Lawful Duties MASTER OF THE ROLLS, LORD PHILLIP STATED: “When an individual takes up profession or occupation that depends crucially upon observance of certain rules, and then deliberately breaks those rules, he cannot be heard to contend that he has a vested right to continue to earn his living in this profession or occupation.” Incarnate criminality, fraud & malpractices of Barclays, amounting to all time record numbers of any corporation, yet bafflingly they remain in retention of their banking license, receiving no real retribution or revocation, whilst SFO offer them ‘Justice For Sale’ for all their criminality? MALADMINISTRATION IN PUBLIC OFFICE IS USED TO DESCRIBE CORRUPT BEHAVIOUR BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL: Situation where the individual or group in charge is unjust, dishonest, or ineffective in their leadership. In this case we have volumes of cogent evidences of Maladministration from so called sworn in ‘protectors’; Maladministration circumstances are so bad, they must be investigated and/or all guilty parties immediately struck off or criminally charged.

MALFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE: Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party by Commissioning of a wrongful or unlawful act by a public official.

MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE: Improper, negligent, or unlawful execution of an essentially lawful act, or a transgression or trespass such as misuse of authority by a public official. NONFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE: Failure to perform an act required by law or failure to carry out an obligation.

MALADMINISTRATION, MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE WILL RESULT IN CITIZEN ARRESTS & PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS IF & WHERE NECESSARY: In English public law every citizen still has the right, as he once had a duty (though of imperfect obligation), to invoke the aid of courts of criminal jurisdiction for the enforcement of the criminal law by this procedure. It is a right which nowadays seldom needs to be exercised by an ordinary member of the public, for since the formation of regular police forces charged with the duty in public law to prevent and detect crime and to bring criminals to justice, and the creation in 1879 of the office of Director of public prosecutions, the need for prosecutions to be undertaken (and paid for) by private individuals has largely disappeared: but it still exists and is a useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981, STRICT LIABILITY: The strict liability rule in this Act "the strict liability rule" means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the true course of justice, in particular legal proceedings, regardless of intent to do so. The Conservative Cabinet & all UK’s authorities.

CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981, PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT: Barristers have an overriding duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice and to ensure in the public interest that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved. Both Attorney General & the Justice Minister have miserably failed.

DUTY OF INDEPENDENCE: Barristers are individually and personally responsible for their own conduct and for their professional work and are required to exercise their own personal judgement in all professional activities and to be absolutely independent and free from all other influence.

CONFIDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY: A barrister’s responsibility to the Court ensures that the judge hearing the case has all the material necessary to enable that judge to make a decision. There is a proud tradition at the Bar of making sure that the Court is kept properly informed. In the very rare case where a barrister fails in his duty, it is regarded as a most serious breach of professional conduct and is almost certain to be the subject of a referral by the judge to the Professional Conduct Committee. Both DJ Woods & Trustee, Mr. Kevin Lucas, have both miserably failed in their duties. Will the rest of the ‘Protectors’ will correct their wrong doings or will they also miserably fail their lawful compulsory duties?

46




‘Principal Protectors’ Abrogating Their Duties To Protect UK’s Constitution & Its Citizens

As ‘Principal Protectors’ of the Constitution & its laws, we expect courteous, expedient attention and response to all our criminal allegations raised against the Land Registry (4th March 2008), the Judiciary (50+ Court Cases), the Treasury (‘pre-birth’ tax), the National Audit Office (Official Receiver \ Trustee). All the ‘Principal Protectors’ have so far miserably failed in their legal compulsory duties, making all of them, ‘Unfit For Purpose’. Our Barristers are critically looking at Maladministration, Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance in Public Office. Prime Minister Mrs. Teressa May [email protected] Treasury Mr. Philip Hammond [email protected],

[email protected], Home Office Ms. Amber Rudd, [email protected], Justice Secretary Ms. Liz Truss [email protected], Attorney General Mr. Jeremy Wright [email protected], Advocate General Ms. Jennie Jarvis [email protected], National Audit Office Mr. Amyas Morse [email protected], Treasury Committee Mr. Gavin Thompson [email protected], Cabinet Office Mr. Richard Heaton [email protected], Harrogate/Knaresborough MP Mr. A. Jones [email protected], Bank of England Mr. Mark Carney [email protected], Prudential Regulatory Authority Mr. Andrew Bailey [email protected], National Security & Intelligence Mr. Charles Farr [email protected], HMRC Mr. Jon Thompson [email protected], HM Courts & Tribunals Ms. Natalie Ceeney [email protected], Mr. Guy Tompkins [email protected],

Ms. Susan Acland-Hood [email protected], Business, Innovation Mr. Sajid Javid [email protected], Civil Justice Council Mr. Peter Farr [email protected], Judicial Conduct Ms. Judy Anckorn [email protected], House of Commons Mr. David Lidington [email protected], House of Lords Baroness Evans [email protected], Financial Conduct Authority Mr. John Griffith-Jones [email protected],

Ms. Tracey McDermott [email protected], Solicitors Regulating Authority Mr. Paul Philip [email protected], FRC Mr. Stephen Haddrill, [email protected]. Equality & Human Rights Ms. R. Hilsenrath [email protected], Land Registry Mr. Graham Farrant [email protected], Ms. Carol Gurajena [email protected], Mr. John Pownall [email protected], Mr. Richard Hill [email protected], Official Receiver’s Office Mr. Christopher Brown [email protected], Lucas Johnston Limited, Mr. Kevin Lucas. [email protected],

Mr. Nigel Johnston [email protected], Policing Authorities National Crime Agency Ms. Lynne Owens [email protected], Serious Fraud Office Mr. David Green [email protected], Mr. Kevin Davis [email protected], North Yorkshire Police Mr. David Ellis [email protected], Mr. J. Hodgeon [email protected], Action Fraud Ms. Pauline Smith [email protected], City Of London Police Mr. Ian Dyson [email protected], Crown Prosecution Service Ms. Alison Saunders [email protected],

Mr. Peter Lewis [email protected]. Independent Police Complaints Ms. Lesley Longstone [email protected],

Ms. Anne Owers [email protected], Inspectorate of Constabulary Sir Tom Winsor [email protected],

47




‘Watchers’ Abrogating Their Duties To Protect UK’s Constitution & Its Citizens By Acting As Muted Mutes ‘Watchers’ are guilty of inaction to the structured afflictions by the criminal banks, criminally aided and abetted by the Land Registry, the Judiciary, the Treasury, and the National Audit Office, yet unlawfully ignored by Action Fraud, NCA, SFO, Yorkshire Police & the Conservative Government. The ‘Watchers’ seem to be lacking critical, contextualised comprehension of extremely simple straight forward documents and facts, having a complete lack of will or clout to reign in the audacious criminal aggregates attempting grand thefts without fear. All the ‘watchers’ are unlawfully acting as muted mutes, whilst claiming ‘honesty’ & ‘integrity’, purporting to ‘protect’ the ‘public interest’, where as in reality they have miserably forsaken the 21 million homeowners and forsaken to protect the Sovereignty of United Kingdom and the Sovereignty of the Constitution, thus making all the listed ‘Watchers’ ‘Unfit To Hold Office’ as ‘Unfit For Purpose’. Labour Shadow Leader Mr. Jeremy Coburn [email protected], Labour Deputy Leader Mr. Tom Watson [email protected], Labour Shadow Chancellor Mr. John McDonnell [email protected], Labour Foreign Secretary Ms. Emily Thornberry [email protected], SNP Scotland First Minister Mrs. Nicola Sturgeon [email protected], Scottish Secretary Mr. David Mundell [email protected], SNP House Of Lords’ Speaker Ms. Kirsty Blackman [email protected], Liberal Democrats Leader Mr. Tim Farron [email protected], LD First Secretary of State Mr. A. Carmichael [email protected], LD Shadow Secretary of State Mr. Nick Clegg [email protected], LD Foreign Secretary of State Mr. Tom Brake [email protected], Wales Secretary Mr. Alun Cairns [email protected], DUP’s Leader Ms. Arlene Foster [email protected], Sinn Fein’s Leader Mr. Gerry Adams [email protected], UKIP Leader Mr. Paul Nuttall [email protected], UKIP Ex-Leader Mr. Nigel Farage [email protected], The Co-Operative Party Leader Mr. Gareth Thomas [email protected], Mr. Gavin Shuker MP [email protected], Treasury Select Committee Mr. Andrew Tyrie [email protected],

Mr. Chris Philip [email protected], Foreign Secretary Mr. Boris Johnston [email protected], London Mayor Mr. Sidiq Khan [email protected], Defence Secretary Mr. Michael Fallon [email protected], Home Affairs Sub-Committee Mr. T. Pembroke [email protected], Insolvency Service Ms. Sarah Albon [email protected], HMRC Executive Chairman Mr. Edward Troup [email protected], HMRC Counsel & Solicitor Ms. Gill Aitken [email protected], Civil Justice Council Ms. Sarah Wallace [email protected], Civil Justice Council Ms. Clare Farren [email protected], Judiciary Mr. Stephen Ward [email protected], Judiciary Mr. Andrew Tuff [email protected], Judicial App. Commission [email protected], Government Legal Department Mr. Jonathan Jones [email protected],

48




‘Witness Bearers’ Abrogating Their Duties To Protect UK’s Constitution & Its Citizens (Muted Mutes) Our Barristers are critically looking at Maladministration, Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance in Public Office. Intelligence Services Commissioner [email protected],

NCA [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

Serious Fraud Office Mr. Ben Morgan [email protected],

Ms. Kristin Jones [email protected], Ms. Lesley Dugdale [email protected], Mr. Mathew Wagstaff [email protected], Mr. Mark Thompson [email protected], Mr. Stuart Alford [email protected], Mr. John Peck [email protected], Ms. Kim Varis [email protected], Press Office [email protected], Public Enquires [email protected], Counsel Enquires [email protected], Information Officer [email protected], Confidential [email protected],

North Yorkshire Police Fraud Investigation [email protected],

CPS Mr. Michael Healy [email protected], Ms. Rosie Libell [email protected], Ms. Zoe Blah [email protected], Ms. Holly Hall [email protected], Ms. H. Maclachlan [email protected], Strategic [email protected], Enquires [email protected], Publicity publicity.br|[email protected], Press Office [email protected], Enquires [email protected],

HM CPS Inspectorate Information [email protected],

City Of London Police Media [email protected],

Contact [email protected], [email protected],

SCD6 Crime Unit Ms. Hannah Mouland [email protected],

Enquires [email protected]. Press [email protected],

IPCC Ms. Donna Greene [email protected], Enquires [email protected],

49




‘Principal Perpetrators’ To Be Charged For Reset, As All Fully Advised Of The Fraud Barclays’ Chairman Mr. John McFarlane [email protected], Barclays’ Chief Executive Mr. Jes Staley [email protected], Barclays’ Chief Executive Retail Mr. Ashok Waswani [email protected], Barclays’ Group Finance Director Mr. Tushar Morzaria [email protected], Barclays’ Head of Compliance Mr. Michael Roemer [email protected], Barclays’ Mortgages MD Mr. Raheel Ahmed [email protected] Barclays’ Company Secretary Mr. L Dickinson [email protected], Barclays’ Investment Bank (Capital) Mr. Rich Ricci [email protected], Barclayscard’s USA CEO Mr. Amer Sajed [email protected],

Mr. Mike Ashley [email protected], Mr. Tim Breedon [email protected], Mr. Crawford Gillies [email protected], Sir Gerry Grimstone [email protected], Ms. Dambisa Moyo [email protected], Mr. Stephen Thieke [email protected],

Lloyds’ (HBOS) CEO Mr. Antonio, Osorio [email protected], Lloyds’ Head of Retail Banking Mr. David Oldfield [email protected], Lloyds’ Executive Director Mr. George Culmer [email protected], Lloyds Chief Risk Officer Mr. Juan Colombas [email protected], Lloyds’ Independent Director Ms. Anita Frew [email protected], Lloyds’ Independent Director Mr. Alan Dickinson [email protected], Lloyds’ Company Secretary Mr. Paul Gittins [email protected], Lloyds’ Former Chief Executives Mr. Andy Hornby [email protected], Lloyds’ Commercial CEO Mr. Andrew Bester [email protected], Lloyds SME Banking MD Mr. Tim Hinton [email protected], TSB’s Chief Executive Dr. Paul Pester [email protected],

Mr. Darren Pope [email protected], Mr. Nigel Gilbert [email protected], Ms. Helen Rose [email protected], Mr. Jatin Patel [email protected], Ms. Neeta Atkar [email protected], Mr. Ian Firth [email protected], Mr. Carlas Paz [email protected],

Banco Sabadell’s CEO Mr. Jaime Guardiola [email protected],

KPMG’s Chairman Mr. Simon Collins [email protected], KPMG’s Vice Chairman Ms. Melanie Richards [email protected], KPMG’s Managing Partner Mr. Phillip Davidson [email protected], KPMG’s Head Of Risk Mr. David Matthews [email protected], KPMG’s Foundation MD Ms. Jo Clunie [email protected], KPMG’s Main Fraudsters Mr. Brian Green [email protected],

Mr. Richard Fleming [email protected], Mr. Glyn Baddeley [email protected],

DLA’s Managing Partner UK Mr. Simon Levine [email protected], DLA’s Managing Partner USA Mr. Roger Meltzer [email protected], DLA’s Managing Partner USA Mr. Jay Rains [email protected], DLA’s Managing Partner Spain Mr. Juan Picon [email protected], Linklaters’ Managing Partner Mr. Gideon Moore [email protected], Linklaters’ Senior Partner Mr. Charles Jacob [email protected], Linklaters’ Partner (Fraudster) Ms. Katie Bradford [email protected],

50




‘Cohorts Perpetrators’ To Be Charged For Reset As All Fully Advised Of The Fraud Eddisons Ex Managing Director Mr. David Rowling [email protected], Eddisons Managing Director Mr. Paul Thompson [email protected], Eddisons Director Mr. John Padgett [email protected], Eddisons Director – Manchester Mr. Paul Gagan [email protected], Eddisons Director – Leeds Mr. Steven Jones [email protected], Eddisons Director – Valuation Mr. Rob Bower [email protected], Eddisons Dir. - Property Management Mr. Kabir Choudhury [email protected], Eddisons Dir. - Property Management Mr. Lindsay Kerr [email protected],

Pannone Managing Partner Ms. Emma Holt [email protected], Pannone Corporate Chairman Mr. Steven Grant [email protected], Pannone Corp. Managing Partner Mr. Paul Jonson [email protected], Pannone Corp. Legal Director Mr. Gareth Jessop [email protected], Pannone Corp. Legal Director Ms. E Wilkinson [email protected], Pannone Corp. Legal Director Mr. Kevin Connell [email protected], Pannone Corp. Legal Director Ms. Clare Aiden [email protected], Slater Gordon Group MD Mr. Andrew Grech [email protected], Slater Gordon UK CEO Mr. Ken Fowlie [email protected], Slater Gordon Chairman Mr. John Webber [email protected], Slater Gordon Employment Leader Mr. John Sturzaker [email protected], Slater Gordon Head Of Law Mr. Siri Siriwardene [email protected],

Weightmans’ Managing Director Mr. John Schorah [email protected], Weightmans’ Managing Partner Mr. Paul Gaul [email protected], Weightmans’ Senior Partner Mr. Dan Cutts [email protected], Weightmans’ Managing Fraud Mr. Varun Maharaj [email protected], Weightmans’ Complaint Manager Mr. James Holman [email protected], Weightmans’ Complaint Manager Mr. Stuart McFarlane [email protected], Freeman Fisher Managing Partner Mr. Alex Megaw [email protected], Freeman Fisher Partner Mr. Gary Black [email protected], Freeman Fisher Partner Mr. Krista Powell [email protected],

MSB Solicitors Mr. Paul Bibby [email protected]

Bermans’ Corporate Leader Mr. Jon Davage [email protected], Bermans’ Corporate Mr. Anton Stirrett [email protected], Bermans’ Head of Insolvency Mr. Philip Farrelly [email protected], PWC’s EX-Chairman Mr. Ian Powell [email protected], PWC’s Chairman Mr. Kevin Ellis [email protected], PWC’s Managing Partner Mr. Warwick Hunt [email protected], PWC’s Risk Officer Ms. Margaret Cole [email protected], PKF’s Managing Partner Mr. Carmine Papa [email protected], PKF’s Chairman Mr. Mark Ling [email protected], PKF’s Partner (Board) Mr. Neil Coulson [email protected], PKF’s Non Executive (Board) Mr. Simon Slater [email protected],

KLSA’s Partner Ms. Chilpa Chheda [email protected], KLSA’s Partner Mr. Ketan Shah [email protected], KLSA’s Partner Mr. Viran Doshi [email protected], KLSA’s Partner Mr. Shakunt Shah [email protected], KLSA’s Partner Mr. H. Dodhia [email protected], KLSA’s Partner Mr. S. Shah [email protected],

51




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On 22nd June 2004 / 30th of July 2004 Criminally ‘Registered Charge’

1. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE 22ND OF JUNE 2004 ‘CHARGES’. The Land Registry’s Charges’ Register criminally shows that Pearl’s Holdings (Europe) Limited - Ten Acre Limited ‘Charges’ of 22nd of June 2004, were fully registered on 30th of July 2004. (A) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON LARGE UNLAWFUL LOAN WITH BARCLAYS’

KNOWLEDGE as stated in Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067) by LJ Briggs in paragraph 135, “Shaid... additional security...worth a potential £30 million. That property had to Barclays’ knowledge been financed by a loan of £6.7m ... Ten Acre Limited by a transaction in breach of s.330, and there were inadequate security documents... Barclays' knowledge a large unlawful loan, but this does not appear to have increased Barclays' perception of the risks inherent in leaving Shaid in control.” The ‘£6.7m’ loan was Mr. Guy’s loan of £4.8m plus £1.9m claimed to have been paid to him, but untrue as confirmed by Mr. Phillip Farley’s (Bermans) Statement of Truth (The thief defending his own criminal actions in Guy v Ten Acre Limited - 6LS51776).

(B) Jordon’s Business Information Services stated that they were no ‘Charges’ registered against Ten Acre Limited (Gibraltar) on 14th of October 2005 (from it’s creation).

(C) 13th April 2005 Restrictions terms prevented any charges to be registered after 13th April 2005 as stated in the Restrictions terms, “No disposition of the register stated by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of any registered charge is to be registered without a written consent signed by Trevor Guy...” From this date, all that followed is a farce at law.

(D) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ - Land Registry’s Official Copy of Register of Title, dated

4th Sep 2014, stated (6), “(11.10.2006) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered charge dated 22 June 2004 in favor of Lexi Holdings PLC (Tampering; as it was Pearl, not Lexi, as Lexi was only created on 9th of November 2004) referred to above is to be registered without the consent of Brian Green or Richard Dixon Fleming as joint administrators of the proprietor of the said registered charge.” 11.10.06 Restriction on 22.6.04 ‘Charges’.

(E) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ - Land Registry’s OS3R(W), dated 19th December 2007,

Official Search 183-CN-GM stated, “Application, Enter a Restriction relating to the Registered Charge dated 16th May 2006 in favour of Lexi Holdings PLC without the consent of Brian Green or Richard Dixon Fleming (joint administrator of Lexi Holdings PLC), received on 11th October 2006”, Pearl Holdings (Europe) Limited – Ten Acre Limited (Gibraltar) ‘Charges’ were only finalised at Company House on 16th of May 2006 (11.10.06 Restriction on 16.5.06 ‘Charges’).

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ Pearl Holdings (Europe) Limited – Ten Acre Limited (Gibraltar) ‘Charges’ of 22nd of June 2004 (30th of July 2004) were ‘finalised’ on 16th of May 2006, but these could not be legally registered due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2004 Restrictions terms & therefore 22nd of June 2004 (30th July 2004) ‘Charges’ are legally void & must be immediately removed, inc, all Restrictions connected to these ‘Charges’ from the Land Register. Due to the Administrators (KPMG) withdrawing their objection on 24th of July 2008 to the Restrictions, live writ 7472 of 2006 (6LS51776, 6LS30411 & 6243 of 2007) terms dictates ‘Res Judicata’ that, 1) Mr. Guy restored as the Registered Proprietor; 2) Direction for 13 years of damages and/or 3) Transferred to Criminal court. Since the Judiciary & the Land Registry will not do their legal duties, Attorney General must do it or be removed from the office of the Attorney General and charged as a accomplice of Barclays.

52




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Management Reports Proving Organised Criminality Among Many

LEXI HAD TO SUPPLY WEEKLY REDEMPTION SCHEDULES AND MONTHLY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS TO BARCLAYS: Please read Management Reports before proceeding any further with this report. As per the Loan Agreement, Lexi was to supply weekly redemption schedules and monthly management accounts. Further to that there should have been a Bridging Finance Report showing Lexi’s loan book in great detail. If these were being submitted, any long-run fraud was impossible over six months, let alone the actual 6 years period.

1. ABSENCE OF THE SOLICITORS’ CONFIRMATIONS WAS A SURE INDICATOR OF FRAUD ON WHICH

BARCLAYS HAD TO ACT IF NO OTHER CRIMINAL INTENT: In Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 130, KPMG reported lack of security documents “...Their findings revealed a disquieting absence of complete security documentation in Lexi's files...” If Barclays did not get solicitors’ confirmations, then it was a sure indicator of fraud in the process. If false loans were being put through the funding account, Lexi had to either remit these, or they had to put the loans through a recovery process, or classify them as bad debts. All these procedures should have been patently suspicious enough for Barclays, Barclays Capital, (Marcus Palmer) Clive Gresham, Peter Richardson, KPMG, PWC, KLSA, PKF and DLA to investigate.

2. CASH RECONCILIATION WOULD HAVE REVEALED THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER ACCOUNTS.

3. FRAUD WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE WITH MONTHLY RECONCILATIONS: KPMG were persuaded

either by their own bad faith, or the large bribe (s) to describe all of these, as examples of 'inefficient management', with fraud merely being a 'theoretical possibility', rather than a ‘stone cold certainty’.

4. FRAUD WAS EASILY DETECTABLE WITH QUARTERLY INSPECTION OF THE LOAN BOOK: If management

accounts and Bridging Finance Reports existed they would have to be full of fraudulent loans and payments on a repeated basis. These fraudulent loans would have been easily detectable on the quarterly inspection of the loan book by PWC, Lexi’s auditors and thirdly, by Barclays, the Barclays’ Capital team including (Marcus Palmer), Clive Gresham, James Sackett, Peter Richardson and further activity in the loan book would have been irreconcilable with activity on the Receipts Account. From our deductions it is obvious that the management accounts must have been a complete shambles if they existed at all. How did PWC, KLSA, PKF and KPMG all ‘apparently’, ‘publically’ fail to unearth the fraud when they inspected the books in 2004 and early 2005, when discovering the fraud was a straight forward job that any basic trainee would have discovered in no time at all? Management Accounts and/or their absence is clear evidence of Barclays’ complicity with Luqman. Barclays and KPMG did not do any checks or any due diligence, they already knew what they would find, fraud on a industrial scale and they did not want any internal evidence of the fraud, so they had to claim they effectively left Luqman ‘unfettered and unsupervised’ and ignored the "Early Warning List". Would any responsible bank lend over £100m without management accounts without independent financial director and continue to double the facility even after the exposure of fraud in a court case by a High Court judge and on top of all that to let the company to operate ‘unfettered and unsupervised’? Are these the actions of a responsible bank or actions of a criminal bank?

5. THE FRAUD WAS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT BARCLAYS’, KPMG’S, DLA’S & PANNONE’S DIRECT INVOLVEMENT: We submit by studying the accounts and Management Reports that it was impossible for Luqman to have got away with hiding his frauds from his lenders for even 6 months, let alone 6 years.

SFO’s Quote - “Monies obtained by Lexi under the agreement were diverted and recycled through various bank accounts held in different names and trading entities which were hidden from the auditors and from Barclays and later a syndicate of banks of which Barclays was the senior partner. They were also hidden from Lexi's own internal accountants as the hidden accounts were controlled by a closed circle. The Lexi accounts were doctored to create a false picture of the company's profitability and creditworthiness. Money was drained out of the company to family members in Pakistan and included large sums to the brothers' father, Mohammed Luqman.” SFO has to ask as to whether this is really possible, in today's day and age for a highly complex, organised, industrial scale fraud of this magnitude to be hidden from Barclays and its whole complement of top tier auditors, lawyers, Lexi’s directors and internal staff for even 6 months, let alone the remarkable five year period; especially in a bridging finance company with its normal operational mechanism with weekly redemption schedules and monthly management accounts, so how can SFO’s account possibly be a realistic version of events?

53




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Directors’ Loan Account ‘Game’

1. FRAUD INVOLVING DIRECTORS’ LOAN ACCOUNT AND FALSE ACCOUNTS: Please read Directors’ Loan Account report before proceeding any further. Pearl’s accounts were wrong as they included a property that was not owned by Pearl as stated in Pearl v HCW (4MA70055), page 11, lines 3-32, “....included in Pearl's accounts for the year ended 31st December 2002...cost price of £1.3rn odd.” Page 20, lines 14-26, “...re-classified the property in the accounts as held by a subsidiary but have left it in the accounts and shown it.” Page 11, lines 14-18, “...cost price of £1.3rn odd.” Then the accounts showed profit from the sale of property that was not even owned by Luqman as stated in Pearl v HCW (4MA70055) Page 12, lines 48-51, “...subsequently sold in July 2003, realising more than £3m”. Pearl attempted to buy the said property, but the sale was never finalised as stated in Pearl v HCW (4MA70055) Page 16 lines 45-47, “...Pearl did try to buy the property but did not complete....” The accounts of Pearl, later Lexi, from 2002 onwards never reflected 'true and fair value' and were never corrected.

2. MARCUS PALMER SACKED AS HE WANTED TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD THROUGH THE DIRECTORS’ LOAN ACCOUNT: Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 119, Briggs states, “Mr. Palmer followed up his receipt of HCW’s letter…there should be a “full transparent, detailed audit trail on the source of all monies that had entered the company either as equity or as directors' loans., a meeting to review Shaid's response was proposed for early December.” Paragraph 120, Briggs states, “Before this could take place, Mr. Palmer was replaced as manager of Barclays' end of the relationship by Mr. Gresham…” It was a huge irony and complicity of Barclays that Gresham failed to follow up the inquiries into the Directors’ Loan Account initiated by Palmer, raising the question as to whether Palmer was forced to resign for his past laxity, or for a new-found assiduity.

3. DIRECTORS’ LOAN ACCOUNT ASSETS WERE A SECURITY FOR THE BANKS: The assets in the

Directors’ Loan Account were a form of security for the banks and should have been the subject of separate due diligence on many occasions prior to 27th July 2005.

4. FATHER’S BANKRUPTCY IGNORED: Knowledge of Luqman’s father's bankruptcy early in 2005, made

it impossible to believe Luqman's stories of the fabulous family wealth underpinning the Directors’ Loan Account. This was also ignored by Barclays because they knew what they would find and obviously did not want internal evidence of fraud.

5. MONTHLY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS IMPOSSIBLE AS DIRECTORS’ LOAN ACCOUNT GREW:

We conclude that as the fraud went on over the five years, and as the Directors’ Loan Account grew larger, meaningful management accounts became impossible, and if they did exist they had to be in the most embarrassing cursory form, confirming complicity in this fraud.

6. TEN ACRES LANE LAND, THE PERFECT GOAT TO COVER FRAUDULENT DIRECTORS’ LOAN ACCOUNT LOANS: When it looked as though the penny must drop regarding the Directors’ Loan Account along came Ten Acres Lane £30m land.

7. DIRECTORS’ LOAN ACCOUNT GAME: Barclays passed over the due diligence of the Directors’ Loan

Account to DLA who did nothing. This was a game in an attempt to cover their backs for ‘publically’ for not doing a check on the Directors’ Loan Account as the whole situation demanded and cried out for. It was very easy for Barclays to internally check the Directors’ Loan Account, or alternatively the second choice being KPMG - it most certainly should not have been DLA as they are lawyers and not forensic accountants. Any checks would have revealed the rampant fraud and forced Lexi’s closure.

8. SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORT: Barclays should have pulled the plug and completed a Suspicious Activity Report no later than November 2004. In fact from what Barclays and Pannone knew in 2002, and 2003, Luqman’s loan facility should never have been extended.

54




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On What High Court Judges Said About Barclays’ Knowledge?

IT WAS JUDGED THAT BARCLAYS WERE AN ‘INNOCENT PARTY’, BUT THIS IS FAR FROM TRUE: In Barclays v Guy (A3/2008/0120), LJ Lloyd’s conclusion was: So the question is whether Mr Guy can show an arguable case, on the evidence, for saying that Barclays Bank had actual notice (yes) or was turning a blind eye (yes) to matters that it knew, which would if it addressed them properly, have shown that Ten Acres Limited did not have good title to the property ➢ TRULY SHOCKING FRAUD UNDER EVERYONES NOSES: Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 1, "...

a fraud which is truly shocking in its scale and audacity. ...three years, Shaid misappropriated in excess of £53 million... all under the noses of the claimant’s auditors, solicitors and funding bankers ... twice imprisoned... 1990s."

➢ BARCLAYS SPECTACULARLY FAILED WITH THE INFORMATION IT HAD AT THE TIME: In Lexi v Luqmans(HC06C04067), paragraph 125, “One can only marvel…Shaid, ... had been given every opportunity to challenge HCW's case…Shaid chose not to do so. The result was that, faced with judicial findings which ought, objectively, to have caused Barclays' prior faith in Shaid's integrity to have been wholly destroyed, Barclays nonetheless chose to treat that issue as undecided (?), and to leave him in wholly unsupervised (?) control of Lexi's affairs for the best part of two further years.... Barclays spectacularly failed with the information it had at the time.”

➢ CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE CALLED YET CRIMINALLY ‘PUBLICALLY’ TREATED AS MERE ALLEGATIONS BY BARCLAYS: Pearl v HCW (4MA70055), page 24, line 16 stated, "...clear an abuse of the process of this court as it would be possible to find...dishonesty...fraudulent documents...perjury...clear a case involving those as any I have come across for a long time...number of criminal offences (?)....pass over to the Crown Prosecution Service (?)…" In Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 124, Briggs states, “On the basis of that wholly inadequate…Barclays…regarded as “mere allegation” (?) about which Barclays could not form a view (?)…”

➢ IF FULL TRUTH EXPOSED NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SHUT LEXI DOWN: Lexi v Luqmans,

(HC06C04067) paragraph 143, Briggs states, “It is temptingly easy with the benefit of hindsight, and the application of reasonable businesslike common sense at a high level of generality, to conclude that faced not merely with findings of current dishonesty, but an allegation that this was a recurrence of an earlier dishonest career in business, Barclays and its syndicate partners would have had no practical alternative but to intervene...”

➢ IT MAY BE ALL THE MORE REMARKABLE THAT BARCLAYS ADOPTED COOPERATION: In Lexi v Luqmans(HC06C04067), paragraph 117, “... an auditor's statement showing that they had been purportedly dismissed after discovering an apparently serious fraud by Shaid, and that this concealment had been achieved, to the satisfaction of a judge sitting in the High Court on an application duly notified to Lexi, by the combination of abuse of process, perjury and forgery. It may seem all the more remarkable that Barclays adopted a policy of cooperation (?) with Shaid at a time when, after permitting a brief visit by KPMG to the company's offices, he had then terminated that permission on 18th January 2005, such that he was not fully cooperating in fact.”

➢ POWERFUL, DETAILED STATEMENT, A WARNING TO ANYONE DEALING WITH MR LUQMAN: In Barclays

v Guy, (A3/2008/0120) on 9th of April 2008, page 24, point 7 of his judgment stated, “I find telling that Mr. Guy focused strongly on the terms of the Horwath Clark Whitehill statement. That is a powerful and detailed statement as to the lack of trustworthiness of Mr Luqman and would fairly be a warning to anyone dealing with Mr Luqman or his companies that they should look at any proposed dealing with him with great care (?)...”

➢ BARCLAYS GRAB THE CHANCE TO STEAL £30M LAND: Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 135, “...proffered a property ... owned by a company ... appeared to Barclays ... worth a potential £30 million...Barclays knowledge been financed by a loan of £6.7m ... by a transaction in breach of s.330, and there were inadequate security documents in relation to the loan. It was therefore to Barclays' knowledge a large unlawful loan, but this does not appear to have increased Barclays' perception of the risks inherent in leaving Shaid in control (?).”

➢ LLOYDS TSB REFUSED BUT MADE TO SHUT UP WITH HUSH MONEY: Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067),

paragraph 138, “...Lloyds TSB vigorously opposed it (?), favouring the taking of a much tougher line with Lexi ... Barclays bought out Lloyds' share ... net 72.5p in the pound, an amount which, internally, Lloyds regarded as substantially in excess (?) ...outcome heavily dependent upon Lloyds' potential nuisance value (?).

55




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Barclays’ Knowledge Before They Took Their Criminal ‘Charges’

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON LEXI V PANNONE (HC08C01319), WHERE KPMG ACCUSE PANNONE OF FRAUD: In Lexi v Pannone, page 26, 35.2, Pannone were directly accused by KPMG of knowingly allowing Luqman to commit fraud. KPMG accuse Pannone of "incorrect accounting treatment ... false inflation of the director's loan account...improper withdrawal of company funds... making false entries for redemptions which allowed actual redemption money to be misappropriated by Shaid (Luqman)." Could the charge have been any more dogmatic, more explicit or more damning? Pannone were major players in the fraud as they were Lexi’s lawyers from 2001 - 2004. Payments after payments show that Pannone were really cooking the books throughout 2001 – 2004 (before Barclays took their ‘Charges’), & were in total control of Lexi’s funds & fraud. Fraudulent payments were made for bribes & never pursued by KPMG. SAR Reports were criminally ignored (intent) on numerous occasions by all. Pannone were Barclays’ agents & what Pannone knew, Barclays are deemed to know by law.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON PEARL V HCW’S (4MA70055) JUDGMENT ON 27TH OF OCTOBER 2004: Fraud exposure letter criminally gagged by Pannone with perjuries on 29th of January 2004 to complete their part in the fraud and walk away on 30th of April 2004, after criminally raising £100m facility. Barclays had to check into Luqman’s past, after Pearl v HCW (4MA70055) exposed untraceable ‘£3m profit,’ laundered into accounts. Accounts for both 2002 and 2003 were incorrect with Barclays\KPMG’s\DLA\Pannone\PWC\KLSA\HCW’s knowledge, yet criminally never corrected. CPS called yet criminally ‘publically’ treated as mere allegations. Those who wanted to expose the fraud were sacked (Marcus Palmer) or bought out with hush money (Lloyds TSB).

➢ PEARL AUDITED THREE TIMES IN 2004 BY PWC AS BARCLAYS SMELL OUT HCW’S GAGGED LETTER:

Barclays had to be informed that HCW had resigned as part of the condition of the Loan Agreement. Pearl was immediately audited by PWC in February 2004. Management Accounts were in a total mess & Directors Loan Accounts could not withstand any sort of audit. Pearl’s books were a mess and were being truly adulterated by Pannone as described in Lexi v Pannone (HC08C01319) yet PWC found nothing, so on what did they audit especially in a bridging company with its usual mechanism? Pearl was audited again by PWC in March 2004 & September 2004. With what Pearl v HCW & Lexi v Pannone informed us, there was plenty to find & yet PWC’s audit officers found nothing or is their report being suppressed by Barclays (why)? SFO/Courts to get reports.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON DLA DUE DILIGENCE: DLA carried out legal due diligence checks in February

2004, but privilege has always been claimed on these reports as shown in Lexi v Luqmans, paragraph 12 4, Briggs states, “Privilege was claimed throughout in relation to DLA's advice to Barclays...” What did they carry out due diligence on? Both scenarios of Barclays’ suppressions of DLA’s report or very poor DLA’s performance are alarming to say the least. SFO/courts must get these reports to fully expose the whole intricate fraud.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON MACE & JONES CONVEYANCE FILE: Could Barclays plead ignorance of Un-

represented seller; No power of attorney; No exchanged contracts; Executed TRI form; No searches; No title deeds; No consideration passing through any accounts; No completion statement; ‘ignorance’ of the Law Society’s ‘Green Card’ warning on property fraud & ‘ignorance’ of all money laundering regulations.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON ABSENCE OF THE SOLICITORS’ CONFIRMATIONS: In Lexi v Luqmans

(HC06C04067), p 130, KPMG reported lack of security documents “...Their findings revealed a disquieting absence of complete security documentation in Lexi's files...” If Barclays did not get solicitors’ confirmations, then it was a sure indicator of fraud in the process and Barclays should have shut Lexi down, just as Lloyds TSB insisted.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT & OUTWARDLY UNJUSTIFIABLE SURVEY

valuation is hardly worth the paper it is written on, but is was a free get out of jail card. The very idea that Barclays, KPMG & DLA could use a report in this form & quality to justify a £35m valuation is highly questionable.

➢ LLOYD TSB BANK REFUSED TO CONTINUE TO BE PART OF THE FRAUD: In Lexi v Luqmans, paragraph

143, Briggs states, “It is temptingly easy with the benefit of hindsight ... to conclude that faced not merely with findings of current dishonesty, but an allegation that this was a recurrence of an earlier dishonest career in business, Barclays and its syndicate partners would have had no practical alternative but to intervene...” In Lexi v Luqmans, paragraph 138, “...Lloyds TSB vigorously opposed it, favouring the taking of a much tougher line with Lexi ... Barclays bought out Lloyds' share ... net 72.5p in the pound, an amount which, internally, Lloyds regarded as substantially in excess ... outcome heavily dependent upon Lloyds' potential nuisance value.” Yet Lloyds got re-involved in this fraud when they took over BOS.

56




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Section 58 - Barclays’ Knowledge Before Their ‘Charges’

➢ Impossible not a single ‘professional’ did any due diligence (Luqman) from 1998-06(8yrs) with reported fraud. ➢ Barclays knew the opportunity for fraud using the receipt account in 2002 as per Palmer’s email to Luqman as stated

In Lexi v Pannone (HC08C01319), page 12, 15.2, “…All monies held on clients account in relation to redemptions need to be transferred from Pannone to Barclays holding account as per facility agreement…Barclays also pointed out that certain redemption money had not been received.” Fraud was allowed in simple terms because the solicitors with criminal intent did not arrange payments out of the “'funding' account and into the 'receipts' account” as they should have, and Barclays intentionally failed with criminal intent in its duty to clamp down.

➢ in Lexi v Pannone (HC08C01319), page 26, 35.2, where Pannone LLP (2001 – 2004) were accused by KPMG of knowingly allowing Luqman to commit fraud. KPMG accuse Pannone of: "incorrect accounting treatment ... false inflation of the director's loan account...improper withdrawal of company funds...making false entries for redemptions which allowed actual redemption money to be misappropriated by Shaid (Luqman)(?)." Ms. Joy Kingsley, managing partner stated In Lexi v Pannone, page 6, 11.5, “In an email Kingsley said that “....I suspect he (Luqman) will use the new £20m for this and be defrauding Barclays again...” It is hard to believe the Managing Partner actually used the words 'and be defrauding Barclays again' in the sense that she knew yet no reporting what-so-ever.

➢ In mid 2003, Lexi v Pannone, page 8, 11.10, “Farn commented, “.... I am sure Lucky (Luqman) can see the “evil” day approaching.” And this was near the start of Pannone's relationship, yet despite accurate knowledge of the fraud, the whole firm of Pannone's continued giving Luqman their full support in every which way possible. Luqman openly discusses Lexi’s fraud with Farn as if they were partners and Farn does nothing. Why?

➢ Pannone were Barclays’ agents and as such what Pannone knew, Barclays are deemed to know by law. ➢ As per Loan Agreement, HCW had to send their Resignation Letter directly to Barclays Jan 04 (knowledge). ➢ HCW’s case proved that Luqman was a forger, a fraudster and also a perjurer, instead of closing Lexi down just as

Lloyds TSB insisted, Barclays instead chose to go further by increasing Luqman's facility. Why? ➢ (4MA70055) called as serious, but ‘publically’ criminally treated this as “mere allegations”. ➢ In order to ensure Lexi’s criminal survival, Barclays ‘publically’ withheld HCW’s information from everyone? ➢ Criminally also hiding from all that the accounts did not represent 'true & fair value' as £3m ‘profit’ laundered. ➢ Criminally Barclays & Co also ensured that ‘publically’ Directors’ Loan Account was never investigated. ➢ Palmer sacked, wanted “full transparent, detailed audit”, replaced by Gresham, left Lexi 'unfettered & unsupervised'. ➢ Privately Barclays took actions to shut down Lexi as clearly shown in the 4th Version of the Loan Agreement only

after Barclays criminally got their hands on Mr. Guy’s £20m+ Ten Acres Lane land. ➢ It was impossible for the DLA’s audit in February 2004 to have missed all Pannone’s misdemeanours. ➢ It is impossible for the ‘Luqmans’ fraud to have been hidden in the 3 PWC’s audits (Feb 04, Mar 04, Sept 04). ➢ PWC were to provide due diligence, but Sep 04 (?) was their last inspection proving Barclays’ fraud intent. ➢ In Mace and Jones conveyance file there was no money laundering checks, no proof of payment, no completion

statement, no valid environment report; in reality nothing and yet Barclays continued. ➢ Barclays should have questioned how a land bought for approx £5m is suddenly valued at £35m (9 months). ➢ Barclays criminally ‘apparently’ did not do any checks on the single largest asset being put up as security. ➢ The survey was internally inconsistent and outwardly unjustifiable done on the same day as instructed. ➢ It was impossible for true Management Accounts to exist as any non-criminal bank & auditors would need. ➢ Barclay approved company restructure, yet no financial director with £100m facility, as he would expose all. ➢ Pearl v HCW showed fraud via Directors’ Loan Account, yet Barclays made sure no investigations into this. ➢ In Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), p172, paragraph 14, “...KPMG advised Barclays...at a cost in excess of £0.5 million....”

The fee of £500,000 was a bribe. The 50 loans “investigated” could not be investigated as there was nothing to investigate as all loans were fraudulently secured on Ten Acres Lane land, with no solicitors’ conformation; no real party to phone; in effect nothing. KPMG ‘apparently’ did not investigate money in and out of accounts or the Directors’ Loan Account or ‘apparently’ investigated Luqman\Lexi either, or ‘apparently’ contacted any auditors, so in reality KPMG did nothing. KPMG did not quite say everything was all right, but they did not come out and say what they should have said fraud, fraudster either. There could never be a final report as this would directly implicate KPMG.

➢ Barclays criminally ignored KPMG’s Draft Reports in Jan/Feb 05, stating absence of security documents and fraud likely. Absence of security documents was a sure indicator of fraud in process (bridging co).

➢ It was impossible for KPMG to give a final definitive report as it would directly implicate KPMG in this fraud. ➢ Bank of Scotland letters state there were issues in how the consideration was going to be paid. ➢ Bank of Scotland and its agents George Davis, Weightmans and Mace & Jones knew the sale aborted. ➢ Barclays had sufficient knowledge not to have placed their ‘attempted’ charge on the Ten Acres land. ➢ Barclays lost their Priorities on 29th of March 2005 when Mr. Guy’s UN1 were registered.

57




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On 8th of March 2005 / 23rd of March 2005 Criminally ‘Registered Charge’

➢ BARCLAYS FORGED ‘CHARGES’ DOCUMENT’S: Page 7 does not fit in with the preceding page. ➢ Page 8 has no page number, S. Luqman signs for Lexi Holding PLC & also signs for Ten Acres Ltd. ➢ Page 9 - Blank Page 10 - Malcolm Davis signs for Lexi, Shaid Luqman signs for Ten Acres Limited.

Reference no 5506794 at bottom of page is from a different contract. ➢ Page 11 is also dubious as not signed by Barclays or even witnessed (no one prepared to sign this). ➢ Last 3 pages duplicated & superimposed over each other & do not fit with other document numbers.

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS – LEXI HOLDING PLC 8TH OF MARCH 2005 ‘CHARGES’: The apparent Priorities of 22nd of June 2004 ‘Charges’ were superseded by Barclays’ 8th of March 2005 ‘Charges’ on 23rd of March 2005. Land Registry’s Charges’ Register criminally shows that ‘Charges’ were fully ‘registered’ on 23rd of March 2005. If Barclays’ ‘Charges’ were fully ‘registered’ on 23rd March 2005, why did DLA apply for Priorities extension on 29th of March 2005 & further Priority extension on 19th of July 2005?

(A) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’: Land Registry letter to Alex (Mr. Megaw) dated 17th of February 2005 advising ‘Alex’ that priority expiry date was 29th of March 2005.

(B) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’: Pannone were verbally asked by Mr. Guy to put on a caution on 26th of

January 2005. When Pannone failed to even check the Register and also failed to put on the Caution, Mr. Guy put the instruction in writing on 28th February 2005, instructing him to put on a Caution in favour of Mr. Guy & the Inland Revenue, failing to do so, resulted in the current bankruptcy. Mr. Megaw put on the UN1 on 24th of March 2005, a day after Land Registry showing ‘Charges’ fully ‘registered’ on 23rd of March 2005, if this does not show conspiracy, what does?

(C) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ BARCLAYS’ LOST PRIORITIES: UN1 were registered on 29th of March

2005, showing 6th on Land Registry Daylist, whilst DLA’s (Barclays, KPMG) application to extend Priorities on the same date clearly showing 7th on the same list. Barclays lost their priorities on 29th March 2005. No priorities from 10th of May 2005, right through until 12th of October 2005, when Priorities were extended, based on perjuries & misrepresentation & breaking late registration rules. Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions prevented any charges being registered against his land.

(D) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON MACE & JONES (WITH BLESSING OF PANNONE) APPLICATION

TO CANCEL UN1 & have it removed from Land Register. The adjudicated UN1 (5HG0776 on 15th April 2005) could not be removed due to Land Registry’s Rule 55, which clearly states that each application must be dealt with, in the order received and 13th of April 2005 writ, 6LS51776 had to be dealt with first.

(E) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON 23RD OF MARCH 2005 ‘CHARGES’ criminally shown registered by

the Land Registry, but no ‘Charges’ registered on 14th of October 2005. The ‘Charges’ were only ‘registered’ on 31st of October 2005 but could not be completed due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions. Barclays’ 8th/23rd of March 2005 ‘Charges’ legally must be struck off from the Land Register.

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON WHATEVER FOLLOWED AFTER 13TH OF APRIL 2005 WAS CRIMINAL, with willful mischief for criminal capital gain. All cases which subsequently followed were illegal, based on Rule 55 & legally have no weight whatsoever in law. Since the Judiciary & the Land Registry will not do their legal duties, Attorney General must sort it or be removed from the office of the Attorney General and be charged as a accomplice of Barclays. Charade of illegal chicanery documented, provides proofs that all the ‘Principal Protectors’ of the law, ‘Watchers’ & ‘Witness’ Bearers, the Judiciary, the Land Registry, the policing authorities, the monitoring authorities, & the licensed ‘professionals’, fettering & fostering a complete contempt against the provisions granted under the Rule of Law. All ‘protectors’ of the law are guilty of Maladministration, Malfeasance, Misfeasance & Nonfeasance, bearing false witness with their inactions, warranting impeachment and/or indictment & incarceration (citizen arrests & private prosecutions?).

58




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On 31st Oct 2005 ‘Registration’ (‘Register’ 23rd March 2005 ‘Charges)’

(A) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS CONFIRMATION THAT THEIR ‘CHARGES’ WERE NOT REGISTERED ON 19TH OF JULY 2005, when they criminally applied to extend their priorities, based on perjuries with knowledge of both Mr. Guy’s 29th March 2005 UN1 & his 13th April 2005 Restrictions. Pannone seriously conflicted.

(B) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE 4TH VERSION OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT: Outright, incarnate, criminality proven by those signing this 27th of July 2005 agreement. PKF were the approved accountants; Halliwells LLP, Mace & Jones LLP, Beachcroft Wansboroughs and Harper Mcload were the company’s solicitors; Pannone LLP, Wacks Caller, Weightman Vizards were agents & security trustee. Pannone, Mace & Jones, Weightmans & Betish all knew that the Ten Acres Lane land was hotly contested by Mr. Guy and all of them should have raised the matter with Barclays, KPMG & DLA, who also knew for sure, that they did not have any ‘Charges’ (19th of July 2005 Application, 6 days earlier), yet all go on to criminally sign the Agreement to raise £125m from Mezzanine Finance, using Mr. Guy’s land as the main security for the loan, which is outright & criminal actions by all those who signed the agreement. All Mr. Guy’s illegal & criminal bankruptcies were by all the lawyers signing this criminal agreement.

(C) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’: On Chief Justice Schofield Order (Comp. No 70 of 2005

Gibraltar), made in the Supreme Court, on 12th of October 2005 as:

(1) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ - Hearing held in private and,

(2) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ - Whilst Mr. Guy was not notified and,

(3) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ - Ten Acre Limited insolvent as never traded and,

(4) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ – Application based on Perjuries , ‘…the Registrar of Companies’ notification that there are no objections hereto...”, yet Mr. Guy had a UN1 dated 29th of March 2005, registered on the Charges Register & Restrictions dated 13th of April 2005 on the Pending Register.

(5) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ - Chief Justice Schofield protected Mr. Guy by the very

last sentence of his judgment, “And this order is without prejudice to the rights of any person acquired between the date of creation of the said legal charge and the date of its actual registration.” Failure to register a charge at Company House on time, granted based on perjuries & misrepresentations & breaking late registration rules with the company insolvent, renders this Judgment legally void.

(D) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION: “...it is hereby

certified that the mortgage or charge created by a Legal Charge dated the 8th day of March 2005 to secure an unlimited amount was registered on 31st day of October 2005” It was Impossible to fully register the ‘Charges’ due to Mr. Guy’s 13th April 2005 Restrictions. The only way they could get this registered is by the Land Registry, illegally & criminally, aiding & abetting, with the illegal & criminal ‘cancelation’ & ‘retake’ on 4th of March 2008. Since the Judiciary & Land Registry will not do their legal duties, Attorney General must sort or be removed from the office of the Attorney General and be charged as a accomplice of Barclays.

59




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On The 4th Version Of The Loan Agreement (27th of July 2005) Proving Organised Criminality Among Many ‘Professionals’ (File 7)

OUTRIGHT CRIMINALITY PROVEN BY THOSE SIGNING THE 4TH VERSION OF THE LEXI’S LOAN AGREEMENT ON 27TH OF JULY 2005: PKF were the approved accountants. Halliwells LLP, Mace & Jones LLP, Beachcroft Wansboroughs and Harper Mcload were the Company’s Solicitors, Agent & Security Trustee Pannone LLP, Wacks Caller, Weightman Vizards. All of them knew that the Ten Acres Lane land was hotly contested by Mr. Guy with Mr. Guy putting the Restrictions on 13th of April 2005. Barclays, KPMG and DLA Piper all had full knowledge that they did not have any ‘Charges’ whatsoever, due to DLA’s instructions to Hassan to get Priority extension application on 19th of July 2005, and the subsequent registration of ‘out of date’ Barclays’ Charge as per Justice Schofield Order (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar) as stated, “...it is hereby certified that the mortgage or charge created by a Legal Charge dated the 8th day of March 2005 to secure an unlimited amount was registered on the 31st day of October 2005 against Ten Acre Limited in favour of Barclays Bank PLC. Given at Gibraltar this 31st day of October 2005”. And further it states that, “This Order is without prejudice to the rights of any person acquired between the date of the creation of the said legal charge and the date of its actual registration” So all knew that Mr Guy’s Restrictions, dated 13th of April 2005 absolute, but they all still criminally went on to commit outright criminal actions by signing the agreement to raise £125m from Mezzanine Finance. Outright criminal! MAJOR LOAN AGREEMENT BREACHES SHOULD HAVE FORCED LEXI’S DEMISE, In Lexi v Luqmans(HC06C04067), p116, “... although aware…breaches of the Facility Agreement … demand immediate repayment…cooperative approach … leave him in unfettered and unsupervised ... until administrators were finally appointed in October 2006”.

➢ Barclays deemed to know by law what all their agents knew, even if the agents did not tell them. ➢ Barclays knew the opportunity for fraud using Receipt Account in Apr 2002, Lexi v Luqmans, p12, 15.2. ➢ Farn Nov 01- £2.5m, Apr 02 - £5m, Oct 02 - £20m, Jul 03 - £50m. Megaw Apr 04 - £100m, KPMG Jul 05-£120m. ➢ KPMG prepared the 4th version of the Loan Agreement at a cost of £150,000 to Lexi / Luqman. ➢ This allowed withdrawal of support by the end of Sep 05, with final termination 31st December 2005. ➢ Gresham of Barclays and Green of KPMG both committed outright perjuries when they told Judge Briggs that

they chose the 'co-operative' route rather than the 'enforcement' route, which wasn't enforced. ➢ DLA fatal ‘Charges’ mistake, automatic avoidance S245 & voidable preference S239 Insolvency Act 1986. ➢ Agreement page 42 clause 21.8 '... have any subsidiary or hold any shares...’ proves KPMG knew about HCW. ➢ If Barclays, KPMG & DLA did believe Luqman to be a fraudster, why not closed down immediately? ➢ No further inspections of Lexi's Loan Book or Bridging Finance Report by PWC after Sept 04. Why? ➢ Stark difference between DLA’s sample of the Loan Boon & KPMG’s sample of Loan Book? Why? ➢ What proportion or amount of the KPMG’s £33m Loan Book samples matured by July 05 as expected? ➢ Barclays, KPMG & DLA criminally increase facility after explicit, detailed knowledge of the fraud. ➢ Lexi/Luqman did not make any of the payments on the four due dates as specified in 6.4 on pg.19. ➢ Bridging loans only 6 months duration with a possible 3 month extension rule not applied. ➢ Abuse of the split banking was allowed even after Lloyds TSB’s account closed with U.N.B’s. account. ➢ Amazingly misuse of the ‘Receipts' Accounts was even allowed in Lexi’s Barclays Corporate Account. ➢ In the 4th version of the Loan Agreement, the ‘ ’ arrangement mysteriously disappeared. Why? ➢ Every loan was supposed to be individually collateralized by solicitors was clearly not exercised. ➢ Breaches on the Companies Act, unlawful loans and unapproved loans to related parties. ➢ 'No misleading information clause' nonsense with fake accounts (HCW’s knowledge) & no due diligence. ➢ Accounts were supposed to be filed within 180 days of the year end, Lexi’s accounts were always late. ➢ No proper ‘Board Pack’ inc. CEO’s report, resolutions passed, disposals, litigations, performance, etc. ➢ If management accounts properly submitted, fraud was impossible over 6 months, let alone 6 years. ➢ Lack of proper weekly & management accounts with £100m proves Barclays, KPMG & DLA’s criminality. ➢ Company restructure, yet no finance director with £100m, as he would expose the fraud within days. ➢ If management accounts properly submitted, fraud was impossible over 6 months, let alone 6 years. ➢ Lexi v Luqmans, p 130, “KPMG... findings revealed a disquieting absence of complete security documentation, flagrant

breach ... lending not merely on short-term bridging loans, but ... fund speculative property...” ➢ Directors’ Loan Account, Banks’ security, exposed by HCW’s case, yet no due diligence ever. Why? ➢ How did PWC, KLSA, PKF and KPMG all ‘apparently’, ‘publically’, failed to unearth the fraud? ➢ Why no charges brought against DLA, KLSA, PKF, PWC, PKF & Lexi’s directors for negligence or worse? ➢ “Luqman's misappropriations" escalated £5m to £53.3m after Barclays, KPMG & DLA took control of fraud.

60




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On 6LS51776 Illegally Stayed, Based On Rule 55 & Rule 8 (1,2,3) (6LS51776, 6LS30411, 7472-2006, 6243 – 2007) Adjudicator’s (2005 – 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436)

THE ADJUDICATORS’ 8 - (1, 2, 3) RULES QUITE CLEARLY STATE THAT NOTHING COULD PROCEED until 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 / 7472 of 2006 / 6243 of 2007 was adjudicated upon. 8–(1) This rule applies where the Adjudicator has directed a party under Section 110(1) to commence Court proceedings on the whole of the matter. 8–(2) Once he has received notice under rule 7(2)(a) that court proceedings have been issued, the adjudicator must adjourn all of the proceedings before him pending the outcome of the court proceeding. Adjudicator tells Linklaters in his letter, dated 28th of April 2008 (ref/2005/1433, 1434, 1435 & 1436) that nothing can proceed until 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 has been adjudicated upon. Nothing could proceed based on Land Registry’s Rule 55 either. Based on these two rules, each & every case that followed was illegal & legally void from outset. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON LJ BRIGG’S STAY ORDER: Application was made to lift the stay on the live writ 6LS51776 / 7472 of 2006 & join Barclays into the main writ whilst suspending 16th of January 2008 planned court hearing. Barclays ‘convinced’ LJ Briggs to commit an illegal act on 9th of October 2007, to stay writ 7472 of 2006 at part 20 & let their illegal, criminal application to proceed against both Land Registry Rule 55 & Adjudicators Rule 8 – (1, 2, 3). LJ Briggs had a public duty to join the claim with the main claim. He gave an Order for discovery, supposed to take place over Dec 2009 & Jan 2010, but was stayed due to the another criminal bankruptcy. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON LIVE WRIT 6LS51776 CLAIM? “The Claimant (Mr. Guy) Claims

1) A declaration that he is the sole beneficial owner of the land with title numbers GM632058, GM748978, GM868172 & LA57319, and that he is solely and beneficially entitled thereto.

2) An order that the Defendant do take such steps as are necessary to have the Claimant registered as the proprietor of the land;

3) Damages for conspiracy to injure the claimant by unlawful means and/or conversion and/or unlawful

interference with the Claimant’s economic interests, arising out of Defendant’s wrongful procuring of the registration of the Defendant as proprietor of the said land;

4) Interest.”

Please advice if Restriction legally registered, then Mr. Guy should also be the registered proprietor as per the writ wording with judgment passed, ‘res judicata’,

1) Mr. Guy re-registered as the Registered Proprietor and, 2) Direction for damages and/or, 3) Stay on live writ 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 / 7472 of 2006 / 6243 of 2007 immediately lifted under

Adjudicators’ Rule 8 (1, 2, 3) & Land Registry Rule 55 & transferred to the criminal court, based on ‘Fraus Omni Corrumpit’ with more perpetrators added and,

4) All Judgments legally declared void & all actions after 13th April 2005 reversed. Since the Judiciary & the Land Registry will not do their legal duties, Attorney General must do it or be removed from the office of the Attorney General and be charged as a accomplice of Barclays.

61




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Various Criminal ‘Statements Of Truths’ This is a highly complex organised fraud. Complexities can never be simplified, because they would cease to be complex, yet there is a rule of simplicity within the complexity as found within this case. Charade of illegal chicanery documented, provides proofs that all the ‘Principal Protectors’, ‘Watchers’ & ‘Witness Bearers’, the Judiciary, the Land Registry, the policing authorities, the monitoring authorities, & the licensed ‘professionals’, all fettering & fostering a complete contempt against the provisions granted under the Rule of Law. The courts needed full information before they could have made any reasoned decisions, instead the courts did not query disclosures or ask any real questions, simply accepted professional credibility and standing over the words of an individual. Judge Langan described Mr. Guy as being “on a crusade”, District Judge Khan held Mr. Guy’s request for the ‘truth’ and ‘a trial to test the evidence’ to be ‘noble but meaningless’. A crusade for the truth, for real justice and to be protected from professional and organised fraud is not only every person’s right, but it forms the very backbone of our legal system and without it our courts & our authorities would not be ‘fit for purpose’.

‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ ON KMPG’S DEFENCE STATEMENT dated the 14th of July 2006 in Trevor Guy v Ten Acre Limited (7472 0f 2006), they claimed on, P 2.1, “The transfer document was dated 22 June 2004 and was registered on 30 July 2004. The price paid to Mr Guy for the transfer was £15m.” On P 2.2, “By a legal charge dated 8 March 2005...That charge was registered on 29 March 2005.” On P 2.5, “If Barclays charge takes priority, and in the administrators view it does….” On P 9, “By a legal charge dated 8 March 2005... charge was duly registered on 23 March 2005 with priority as first ranking security...” The ‘Charge’ was not finalised until 15th of May 2006, but could not be legally finalised due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions terms. There was no consideration paid at all to Mr. Guy. KPMG & DLA both knew for certain, that the ‘Charges’ were not registered on 19th of July 2005 due to DLA instructing Hassans to get priorities extension, heard on 12th of October 2005 (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), Order got based on perjuries & breaking late registration rules. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON LINKLATERS PARTICULARS OF CLAIM dated 10th August 2007 by Simon D. Hartley, represented by Mr. J. McGhee in Barclays v Guy (HC07CO2121), P 7, ”On 23 March 2005 the Charge was duly registered with priority...” P17, “...monies owed to Barclays by Lexi, which indebtedness is secured by the Charge.” ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON MS. KATIE BRADFORD WITNESS STATEMENT KJB1 dated 24th September 2007 in Barclays v Guy (HC07CO2121 on 16th of January 2008), P 7, ” On 23 March 2005 the Charge was duly registered...” P 27, ”On 29 March 2005 (and accordingly after registration of the Charge...” P 32, “....defence indicates that Mr Guy has no real prospect of defending the Claim.” P42, “...the suggestion that Mr. Guy is entitled to rectification as against Barclays cannot succeed as a matter of law.”

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON MS. KATIE BRADFORD SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT KJB2 dated 13th of November 2007, Barclays through its agents committed three perjuries stating that the

(1) ‘ ’ date was 8th March 2005 and, (2) On KB2 Paragraph 37, “The decision of Mr. Justice (sic) Howart of 27 October 2004...was unreported

Barclays received HCW’s Judgment on 12th of Nov 2004, as shown in HC06C04067 and, (3) Paragraph 21 of Bradford’s second statement dated 13th of November 2007, The resignation letter of the

auditors of Lexi ...does not...go as far as to report that Pearl/Luqman were falsifying documents and making fraudulent VAT claims with intent to deceive. Fraud is not referred to in the letter or in the Statement of Circumstances...” That is manifestly false as it was stated on page 24, line 16, ...clear an abuse of the process of this court as it would be possible to find...dishonesty...fraudulent documents...perjury...clear a case involving those as any I have come across for a long time...number of criminal offences....pass over to the Crown Prosecution Service… Any judgment gained by perjuries has to be legally void.

62




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Barclays’ Claim Criminal As No Legal ‘Charges’ Whatsoever

1. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS’ PREMEDITATED, ORGANISED, ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL CLAIM HC07CO2121 ON 10TH OF AUGUST 2007: On 19th of July 2005, DLA (Barclays, KPMG) confirmed that they did not have any ‘Charges’ (never could get due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions’ terms) with DLA instructing Hassans to get Priorities extension, heard on 12th of October 2005, Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar.

(A) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON ORDER 24: Barclays had no ‘Charges’ whatsoever.

Order 24 can only be used when there is no defence. Barclays’ used it to commit crime.

(B) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON BARCLAYS USE OF SECTION 58, "statutory magic", which presumes 'he who is registered as owner is the owner'. Exception to section 58 is Schedule 4 of the 2002 Land Act, which states unless “...by fraud or lack of proper care...unjust for the alteration not to be made’. We prove both fraud & lack of proper care.

(C) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON CRIMINAL UN4 APPLICATION (NO ‘CHARGES’): Order to remove adjudicated UN1 (5HG0776) was utilised to ‘unfreeze’ the Register.

(D) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON LJ MOWSCHENSON’S APPOINTMENT: LJ Richards was to preside over this case, but LJ Mowschenson was flown in from Gibraltar to handle a case that he was totally unfamiliar with. Why? Games in process.

2. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Fraud cases cannot be tried on

Summary Judgments; they must be heard by a jury as judged in HIH Insurance V Chase Manhattan Order 24 Application was a procedural tactic to restrain vital evidence from being exposed in a proper court of law.

3. ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON ILLEGALLY STAYED LIVE WRIT 6LS51776: Barclays v Guy case (HC07CO2121) could not be heard without first lifting the stay on live writ 6LS51776dated 2nd of March 2006, issued under instruction of the Adjudicator.

4. THE CRIMINAL CLAIM HAD THREE CLEAR OBJECTIVES:

(A) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ – Objective to criminally get the “power of sale”, without any

legal ‘Charges’ and,

(B) ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ – Objective to get an illegal & criminal Order 24 to remove the adjudicated & satisfied UN1 (5HG0776), thereby giving the Land Registry a feeble excuse to ‘unfreeze’ the Land Register by cancelling the 13th of April 2005 Restrictions on 4th of March 2008, to illegally & criminally allow:

i) 31st Oct 2005 ‘Registration’ to fully register the 23rd March 2005 ‘Charges’ and, ii) 16th May 2006 ‘Registration’ to fully register the 30th July 2004 ‘Charges’ and, iii) Get 11th of October 2006 Restriction fully registered before the Restrictions were

put back to 13th of April 2005, sometime in August 2008.

(C) Criminally get rid of Mr. Guy’s conspiracy to defraud Claim 6LS51776 against Ten Acre Limited, where attempts were being made to join Barclays & Mace & Jones in this claim.

63




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Barclays’ v Guy (HC07CO2121, 16th of January 2008) Criminal Judgment

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’’ ON 16TH OF JANUARY 2008, ORDER 24 (HC07CO2121), WHERE BARCLAYS WERE GRANTED AN CRIMINAL ORDER 24 With ‘POWER OF SALE’, WITHOUT BARCLAYS HAVING ANY LEGAL ‘CHARGES’ WHATSOEVER: Criminal & illegal UN4 application on Order 24 was used, without Barclays having any ‘Charges’, to criminally & illegally get (1) ‘Power of Sale’; (2) illegal & criminal Order to remove the adjudicated & satisfied UN1 (5HG0776), giving the Land Registry an illegal & feeble excuse to ‘unfreeze’ the Land Register, by cancelling the 13th of April 2005 Restrictions on 4th of March 2008, to illegally & criminally allow: (2a) 31st of Oct 2005 ‘Registration’ to criminally register the 23rd March 2005 ‘Charges’ and, (2b) 16th of May 2006 ‘Registration’ to criminally register the 30th July 2004 ‘Charges’ and, (2C) 11th of October 2006 Restriction to be criminally registered before the Restrictions were put back to 13th of April 2005, sometime in August 2008 and, (3) Criminally get rid of Mr. Guy’s conspiracy to defraud Claim 6LS51776 against Ten Acre Limited, where attempts were being made to join Barclays & Mace & Jones in the claim.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’’ - THIS CASE COULD NOT PROCEED WITHOUT LIVE WRIT 6LS51776 FIRST ADJUDICATED: Register was frozen on 13th of April 2005, as the adjudicator had instructed proceedings, but the proceedings, live writ 6LS51776 / 6LS30411 / 7472 of 2006 / 6243 of 2007 was Illegally stayed by LJ Briggs on 9th of October 2007 (7472 of 2006). Nothing could proceed without these proceedings first being heard, as per Land Registry Rule 55 & Adjudicators’ 8 – (1, 2, 3) rules, yet with all the ‘professionals’ knowledge of illegality, this case was illegally & criminally allowed to proceed (premeditated, organised, criminal intent).

➢ FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ - FRAUD CANNOT BE JUDGED ON SUMMARY HEARING: with legally declared fraudulent documents, such as AP1 Forms (Chief Master Winegarten, 8 0f 2007, on 26th of July 2007 & LJ Henderson, Ch/2007/app/521, on 6th of Dec 2007) & TR1 Forms (LJ Lloyd & LJ Camwart, A3/2008/0120, on 9th of April 2008, Masters of the Rolls, LJ Patten & LJ Black, A3/2008/0120(B), 8th of Dec 2010 & LJ Blackburne, HC09C00788, on 24th of April 2012). Fraud cannot be dealt on summary hearing as judged in HIH Insurance V Chase Manhattan ([2003] UKHL 6) “...based on the allegation of fraud, and no subtlety of language, no craft or machinery in the form of contract, can estop a person who complains that he has been defrauded from having that question of fact submitted to a jury.” At p78, Lord Loreburn LC said, “I will not say a man himself innocent may not under any circumstances, however peculiar, guard himself by apt and express clauses from liability for the fraud of his own agents.”

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THREE VITAL PERJURIES WITH CRIMINAL INTENT: Barclays through its agents committed three perjuries stating that the (1) ‘Charges’ date was 8th March 2005, (2) On KB2 paragraph 37, “The decision of Mr. Justice (sic) Howart of 27 October 2004...was unreported', Barclays received HCW’s Judgment on 12th of Nov 2004. as shown in HC06C04067, (3) Paragraph 21 of Bradford’s second statement dated 13th of November 2007, 'The resignation letter of the auditors of Lexi ...does not...go as far as to report that Pearl/Luqman were falsifying documents and making fraudulent VAT claims with intent to deceive. Fraud is not referred to in the letter or in the Statement of Circumstances...” That is manifestly false as it was stated on page 24, line 16, "...clear an abuse of the process of this court as it would be possible to find...dishonesty...fraudulent documents...perjury...clear a case involving those as any I have come across for a long time...number of criminal offences....pass over to the Crown Prosecution Service…" Any judgment gained by perjuries has to be legally void.

➢ ‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON THE CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL JUDGMENT: Page 26, “…if the defendant had

registered a Unilateral notice (?)…subject to the defendant's right to rectify…” Then alarmingly, at point 3 of his judgment, “3. that the Unilateral notices in favour of the Defendant... said titles be vacated;” LJ Mowschenson states, “...property was transferred by (Mr Guy’s) solicitor...” Mr. Guy did not have a solicitor. LJ Mowschenson failed in his judgment re void & voidable transfers, corrected in the appeal by LJ Lloyd & LJ Camwart (A3/2008/0120). Mowschenson “spectacularly failed” by wrongly treating Pearl v HCW‘s (4MA70055) case as irrelevant with £3m ‘profit’ laundered into account, criminally ignored by Barclays. Who laundered this & why did Barclays ignored it? In Knights Construction v Roberto Mac won on the basis that if you could not rectify the register then the Land Registration Act itself was an article of fraud. Wrong result that has to be reversed as it corrupted UK laws where no property is safe. The illegal, criminal Order 24, at a cost of £406,000, was a ‘game’ to bankrupt Mr. Guy.

‘FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT’ ON DISCLOSURES: Barclays & its agents did not disclose the Supreme Court Order (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar) in this case, with criminal intent. Had the court had this information, it could not pass the judgment. Yet with all knowledge, Barclays through their agents KPMG, DLA & Linklaters are still now criminally trying to force Land registry to break the law to outreach Mr. Guy’s Restrictions, based on 16th January 2008 criminal Order 24.

64




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Barclays’ v Guy (A3/2008/0120, 9th of April 2008) Criminal Judgment

GUY’S CASE WON IF HE CAN PROVE BARCLAYS “TURNED A BLIND EYE”: In Barclays v Guy (A3/2008/0120), LJ Lloyd’s conclusion was: "So the question is whether Mr Guy can show an arguable case, on the evidence, for saying that Barclays Bank had actual notice or was turning a blind eye to matters that it knew, which would if it addressed them properly, have shown it that Ten Acres Limited did not have good title to the property." Pearl v HCW (4MA70055), Lexi v Pannone (HCO8C01319); Barclays Knowledge Before Their ‘Charges’ & Barclays’ Complicity clearly show that Barclays were clearly not the innocent party as claimed and that Barclays should never have put their ‘Charges’ on Mr. Guy’s land. LJ Lloyd stated, in paragraph 12, “If alteration affects the title of the proprietor of a registered estate in land, no order may be made... unless – a) he has by fraud or lack of proper care or substantially contributed to the mistake...” Barclays were the real masters in this fraud.

1. ‘ ’ on the illegal & criminal trial as Barclays did not have any legal ‘ ’ whatsoever. 2. TRI A3/2008/0120) & API (CH/2007/APP/521) were both legally declared fraudulent. In Lexi v Luqmans

(HC06C04067), p135, “....Barclays knowledge been financed by a loan of £6.7m ... inadequate security documents...” 3. Jordon’s confirmed that they were no ‘Charges’ registered against Ten Acre Limited on 14th of October 2005. 4. Masters claimed that 22nd of June 2004 was registered on 30th of July 2004, when attempted finalisation was on

16th of May 2006, but could not be fully registered due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restriction terms. 5. Mr. Guy’s UN1 registered on 29th of March 2005 (6th on Daylist), thus Barclays lost priority (7th on Daylist). 6. DLA (Barclays) confirmed that they were no ‘Charges’ registered on 19th of July 2005, priority extension application,

heard on 12th of October 2005 (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), Order gained with perjuries. 7. Masters failed to see the organised criminality on 27th of July 2005, when Barclays raised £125m from Mezzanine

Finance, using Mr. Guy’s land as security, when they were no ‘Charges’. Lexi went bankrupt for £105m. £100m was raised in April 2004 on the 3rd Version of the Loan Agreement without Mr. Guy’s land.

8. Claimed that 8th of March 2005 was registered on 23rd of March 2005, when attempted finalisation was on 31st of October 2005, but could not be fully registered due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions’ terms.

9. Fraud cannot be tried on summary judgment (HIH Insurance V Chase Manhattan Bank ([2003] UKHL 6)).

10. LJ Lloyd states that Barclays may not have had HCW’s info due to Ms. K. Bradford perjuries, manifestly wrong. 11. LJ Lloyd ignored KPMG's fraudulent and criminalist review of the 50 fraudulent loan books as irrelevant? Why? 12. LJ Lloyd ignored that removing Mr. Guy’s name from the Register was mistake (Criminal Route To Title). 13. LJ Lloyd dismissed the case without property considering the actual law on "mistake" and rectification of the Land

Register. Professor Farrand, a leading land law expert heavily criticised the judgment. 14. LJ Lloyd in paragraph 11-13, was wrong to regard Barclays as the proprietor of a "registered estate’. Barclays were

not in possession, so the court had to order rectification, unless exceptional circumstances for not doing. 15. LJ Lloyd in paragraph 19 overlooks the power conferred by paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of IRA. 16. LJ Lloyd does not consider the moot question of rectification operating retrospectively (Emmet 9.029). 17. LJ Lloyd in paragraph 20 - 22, falls to distinguish between voidable transfer not yet set aside and a void transfer.

Norwich & Peterborough v Steed (voidable) used instead of Argyle v Hammond (void) & Fretwell v Grieves (void from the outset). A forged transfer is void and nullity at common law. Registration of it is therefore a ‘mistake’.

18. LJ Lloyd in paragraph 23, misses the fact that "correcting a mistake" does not also state "in the register". 19. LJ Lloyd in p 27, what LJ Lloyd was saying, was that his judgment was essentially to serve the purposes of this

case and find in favour of Barclays, but he was careful to leave room for other cases to be decided on the merits of the case. Court can make an order for alteration of the register for the purpose of correcting a mistake, as judged in (Ajibade v Bank of Scotland (REF/2006/0163/0174); Odogwu v Vastguide Ltd ([2008] EWHC 3565 (Ch)); Northern Bank Ltd v Henry ([1981] IR 1) Hardison v Gledhill (72 Ga. App. 432 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

20. Not only is the decision wrong and likely to have been different if the true facts were before the court. It is also wrong due to various perjuries by Barclays’ and its agent Ms. Katie Bradford of Linklaters.

21. Court of Appeal determined that it was possible to reinstate Mr. Guy on page 4, point 10, “...a reasonable arguable basis for saying that he (Guy) would be entitled, if allegations are made out, to have the Register rectified...” LJ Lloyd further stated at paragraph 19, "I can see that he could well arguably show (yes) that the registration of the original transfer was a mistake, especially if the transfer was the product of a forgery, because the registration of something that was not properly executed (yes) on the part of the registered proprietor must be a mistake. There is no question of that kind as regards the charge (?). It was properly executed (How?) by [the company]…" So the Judgment claimed that under Section 58, the ‘Charge’ must remain, because it was perjured that it was properly executed, giving Barclays a valid power to sell even though they had no ‘Charges’, even though Mr. Guy did not borrow the money.

22. Defrauded proprietor must either be entitled to retain the title or indemnity. Decision was totally unsatisfactory. 23. Wrong result that must be reversed as it undermines UK land laws and puts 21m home owners at risk.

65




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ Guy v Barclays Illegal & Criminal ‘Judgment’ On 8th December 2010 Summary Masters Of The Rolls - A3/2008/0120(B - [2010] EWCA Civ 1396

Under A3/2008/0120(B - [2010] EWCA Civ 1396 illegal & criminal ruling, Mr. Guy would be dispossessed of his land and Barclays had their ‘power of sale’. Chief functions of the Land Registration system are to ensure a correct record of ownership and to make it extremely difficult for bad title to pass. In this case the Land Register is inconclusive and this judgment allowed bad title to pass. ‘Judges’ make ‘correcting a mistake’ as difficult, onerous and closely declined as possible. Privilege & confidentially is expertly used by the perpetrators to ensure that ‘Joe Public’ cannot even get basic of information & although it is the ‘peoples’ courts to protect the people, the ‘Judges’ protect their paymaster, the banks, even when it involves breaking laws & exceeding their legal allowance, yet there is no one or authority to reprimand them.

1. ‘ ’ on the illegal & criminal trial as Barclays did not have any legal ‘ ’ whatsoever. 2. TRI A3/2008/0120) & API (CH/2007/APP/521) were both legally declared fraudulent. In Lexi v Luqmans

(HC06C04067), p135, “....Barclays knowledge been financed by a loan of £6.7m ... inadequate security documents...” 3. Jordon’s confirmed that they were no ‘Charges’ registered against Ten Acre Limited on 14th of October 2005. 4. Masters claimed that 22nd of June 2004 was registered on 30th of July 2004, when attempted finalisation was on

16th of May 2006, but could not be fully registered due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restriction terms. 5. Mr. Guy’s UN1 registered on 29th of March 2005 (6th on Daylist), thus Barclays lost priority (7th on Daylist). 6. DLA (Barclays) confirmed that they were no ‘Charges’ registered on 19th of July 2005, priority extension application,

heard on 12th of October 2005 (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), Order gained with perjuries. 7. Masters failed to see the organised criminality on 27th of July 2005, when Barclays raised £125m from Mezzanine

Finance, using Mr. Guy’s land as security, when there were no ‘Charges’. Lexi went bankrupt for £105m. £100m was raised in April 2004 on the 3rd Version of the Loan Agreement without Mr. Guy’s land.

8. Claimed that 8th of March 2005 was registered on 23rd of March 2005, when attempted finalisation was on 31st of October 2005, but could not be fully registered due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restrictions’ terms.

9. ‘ ’ on ‘finality’, must be heard in criminal court where evidences can be fully exposed. 10. Fraud cannot be tried on summary judgment (HIH Insurance V Chase Manhattan Bank ([2003] UKHL 6)).

11. Masters incorrectly stated without fact that the Land Register was ‘conclusive’ & ‘irrebuttable’ when it is not. 12. Masters failed in the real issue of attempting a definite ruling on what it means to ‘correct a mistake’. 13. Masters wrongly accepted the narrow interpretation of what ‘correcting a mistake’ meant in the 2002 Land Act. 14. Masters failed in pursuing if Barclays knew or should have known or were involved in the premeditated fraud. 15. Masters failed ‘Duty To The Court First’, in p 10,”...Barclays knew ... lly not pursued...” 16. Master failed in not pursuing whether it resulted in injustice to one of the party, the main issue to adjudicate. 17. Masters failed in their ‘Duty to Court First’ to join both the current application and projected appeal together. 18. Masters remained mute on whether Lloyd's ‘narrow view’ of ‘correcting a mistake’ was best interpretation. 19. Masters ‘hoodwinked’ that the ‘Charges’ could not be removed under p2 (1) (a) of schedule 4 of the 2002 Act. 20. Masters were wrong where the loss must occur by choosing Mr. Guy; a) the Land Registry (criminally aiding and

abetting the fraudsters), b) Barclays (the real perpetrators) & c) Mr. Guy (the real innocent party)? Loss was impossible if there was no Land Register, so the state to bear the cost of the loss and indemnify Mr. Guy.

21. Masters stated ruling very important in the field of Land Registration law but to be decided later, why? 22. Masters claimed decision fundamental to public interest with need of ‘finality’, but gave judgment in favour of banks

and put 21m home owners at risk of being robbed by these criminals. ‘Finality’ cannot overrule justice. 23. Masters failed to correctly uphold the conditions of opening ‘finality’ under CPR 52.17 (1). 24. Masters failed miserably to maintain the true character of the Court of Justice. 25. Masters failed to protect the civil court process from being mutilated (Uddin [2005] 1 WLR 2398, para 18)26. Masters ignored the massive organised fraud that has totally corrupted the civil court procedures in the mass.27. Masters failed to recognise "bias' (in paragraph 9 quoting Uddin [2005] 1 WLR 2398, paragraph 18) on the part of

LJ Lloyd given all the evidence in the public domain & the mountain of evidence supplied by Mr. Guy.28. Masters wrongly agreed with LJ Lloyd & Carnwath that Mr. Guy’s appeal stood no real prospect of success'.29. Masters failed to recognise that removing Mr. Guy’s name from the Land Register was a mistake. 30. Masters failed to reprimand Mr. Guy’s Counsels for selling out Mr. Guy, under ‘Duty To The Court First’. 31. Masters judged that case did not reach the bar set out in Taylor v Lawrence, than no case can reach this bar. 32. Masters came to a disastrous ‘Judgment’ at law, due to incorrect factual information that totally butchered the Land

Registration Act 2002, putting 21m home owners at risk, deterring foreign investment, whilst attempting to help the criminals by trying to bury the very serious crimes, under the guise of ‘finality’. The consequences of their ‘Judgment’ are so grotesque and so immoral that the ‘Judgment’ must be immediately overturned.

66




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Relevant Cases That Prove Judgements Were Bias Towards Barclays

1. FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS WILL NOT PASS FULL OWNERSHIP: Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd (2002) & Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services Ltd (2013) showed that fraudulent transfers will not pass full ownership. The legal owner is said to hold the beneficial interest on trust for the beneficial owner.

2. AJEBADE V BANK OF SCOTLAND CORRECT RULING: Ajebade V Bank of Scotland concluded that a subsequent charge should be removed from the Charges Register by way of rectification leaving the chargee with a right to claim indemnity. If the first ‘mistake’ of the registration of the void transfer was rectified, it follows you must then also rectify the second "mistake" which was only registered on the basis that the first transfer was not a ‘mistake’. Mr Owen Rhys (Deputy Land Registry’s Adjudicator) accepted that wide interpretation was correct.

3. ODOQWU V VASTGUIDE AND OTHERS (2008): In Odoqwu v Vastguide the Land Registrar conceded that if the

original charge was void, the Court would have the power to rectify the Register both against Vasguyuide as a purchaser who obtained its charge by way of a forgery (unknown to it) and against the subsequent mortgagee. Thus the Land Registry accepts a wide view of circumstances that are capable of rectification. Vasguyuide and their subsequent mortgagee also conceded that there was jurisdiction to rectify.

4. ARGYLE BUILDING SOCIETY V HAMMOND SHOWED THAT RECTIFICATION OF THE REGISTER IS

POSSIBLE IF IT IS A VOID DOCUMENT: Argyle Building Society v Hammond also cited as Norwich & Peterborough Building Society v Steed - The actual decision of the later Court of Appeal in Norwich & Peterborough v Steed was that there was such a power to rectify in the case of a forgery which gave rise to a void transfer. In Barclays v Guy Lloyd LJ agreed that it was void. Given the terms of section 82(1)(h) of the 1925 Act and para 2 of Schedule 4 of the 2002 Act it is submitted that the Charges’ Register must be rectified as being part of deceit, fraud & perjuries by Barclays as being a ‘mistake’, in this premeditated fraud infested case.

5. THERE MUST BE SOME SORT OF REMEDY AS JUDGED IN FRETWELL V GRIEVES: This was recognised by

HHJ Langan in Fretwell v Grieves. LJ Langan correctly set out and considered the differences of opinion as to the issue of what mistakes may be corrected under Schedule 4 of the 2002 Act. At paragraph 24 he stated, "...Where opposing views are expressed by the authors of two respected textbooks I cannot at an interlocutory stage rule out either as unarguable...if Mrs Fretwell fails to obtain rectification...she will not obtain compensation from the Land Registry and will be left to what must be a remedy of doubtful value...It must in my judgment be at least arguable that this complex legislation should not be construed so as to give rise to such a result".

6. BARCLAYS PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF NORTHERN BANK V HENRY (1981): Subject: Re: Litigation and.

research on LRA 2002 - This is the decision referred to of the Irish Supreme Court on Northern Bank Ltd v Henry [1981] IR 1. Summary: Held, dismissing the claim, that W's claim that H held in trust for her would have come to B's notice if it had made such inquiries as it ought reasonably to have made in accordance with the standard in the Conveyancing Act 1882 s. 3(1) and accordingly B was deemed to have had constructive notice.

7. TAYLOR V LAWRENCE CASE SHOWED THAT RETRIAL WAS POSSIBLE EVEN AFTER FINAL JUDGEMENT: Taylor v Lawrence (2001/2419) recorded that the purpose of the Court of Appeal is not only to rectify wrong decisions where the process has been critically corrupted and a wrong result arrived at earlier but also to clarify and develop the law. Taylor jurisdiction can only apply where the integrity of the preceding litigation process has been critically undermined with the most likely justification for reopening an appeal being that the process itself has been corrupted. The Court declared that the principles to be applied are: "The need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice makes it imperative that there should be a remedy. What will be of the greatest importance is that it should be clearly established that a significant injustice has probably occurred and that there is no alternative effective remedy and the injustice if the appeal is not reopened is "so grave as to overbear the pressing claims of finality in litigation".

8. IT WAS JUDGED THAT FRAUD MUST BE HEARD BY A JURY: In HIH Insurance v Chase Manhattan Bank, Lord Halsbury summarised paragraph 77 “the action is based on the allegation of fraud, and no subtlety of language, no craft or machinery in the form of contract, can estop a person who complains that he has been defrauded from having that question of fact submitted to a jury.” The case was judged by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote. They judged that a man has a right to have a single point of law cited in a civil court when fraud is incited and should be heard by a jury. Guy was screaming from the rooftops “fraud, fraud, for God’s sake fraud” and yet he is denied Article 1 (2, 6) of the First Protocol, why?

67




Premeditated, Organised, Illegal And Criminal Plan To ‘Unfreeze’ The Land Register Was Criminally Implemented By The Land Registry On 4th Of March 2008

Lexi’s 30th July 2004 ‘Charges’ Created But Not Registered At Company House – Remove 08.04.2004 LA57319 (Charge 30.5.03), GM868172 (C 01.10.03) GM748978 (C 20.10.03) & GM632058 (C 20.10.03). 19.04.2004 Mr. Guy signed blank TR1 & blank sales contract entrusted to Mr. Bibby of George Davis. 17.06.2004 Sales aborted with full knowledge of Mr. Megaw, Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Maharaj, Mr. Bibby & HBOS. 22.06.2004 Land criminally stolen by Mr. Farelly of Mace & Jones. Ten Acre Limited – Pearl ‘Charges’ created. 30.07.2004 Pearl ‘Charges’ shown on Land Register as ‘registered’, but not registered at Company House. Remove. Barclays 8th of March 2005 ‘Charges’ Created But Not Registered At Company House – Remove 08.03.2005 Lexi – Barclays’ ‘Charges’ Created. 11.03.2005 Deeds of Priority – expired on 29th of March 2005. 23.03.2005

Barclays ‘Charges’ took priority over Pearl’s 22nd of June 2004 ‘Charges’. Land Registry illegally & criminally showing Barclays ‘Charges’ to be ‘registered’ on 23rd March 2005 with criminal intent. remove.

29.03.2005 Barclays lost their priority on 29th of March 2005 when the Mr. Guy’s UN1’s were legally registered. 13.04.2005 Mr. Guy’ Restrictions were entered on the Pending Register, preventing any charges to be registered. 15.04.2005 UN1 were adjudicated (5HG0776), but UN1 could not be removed due to 13th of April 2005 Restrictions. 14.10.2005 Jordon’s stated that they were no ‘Charges’ registered against Ten Acre Ltd (Gibraltar) on 14.10.05.

GAME OVER: Barclays lost their Priority on 29th of March 2005 and could never legally get it back due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005. What followed after 13th of April 2005 can only be described as premeditated, organised, very serious criminality by many ‘professionals’, yet to be fully ‘understood’ and charged.

Premeditated, Organised, Criminal Plan Hatched To ‘Recover Charges’, Aided By Land Registry 19.07.2005 Barclays confirm ‘Charges’ not registered, heard 12th of Oct 2005 (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar). 27.07.2005 Barclays criminally raised £125m from Mezzanine Finance on Mr. Guy’s land, without any ‘Charges’. 12.10.2005 Barclays granted priority extension based on perjuries, misrepresentation & abuse of registration rules. 31.10.2005 ‘Charges registered’ at Gibraltar Company House, but couldn’t be at Land Registry due to the Restrictions. 02.03.2006 Live Writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411/7472 0f 2006/ 6244 of 2007) issued under instruction of Adjudicator. 26.07.2007 Chief Master Winegarten’s Judgment (8 of 2007) found the API not properly executed, fraudulent. 30.07.2007

Barclays’ issued their illegal & criminal Claim (HC07CO2121) knowing that they did not have any legal ‘Charges’, on Order 24, Section 58, on a criminal UN4 application to remove adjudicated UN1 (5HG0776). Main objective was to (1) criminally get ‘power of sale’ & (2) to criminally & illegally ‘unfreeze’ the Land Register & (3) get rid of Mr. Guy’s conspiracy to defraud claim 6LS51776, aided by Land Registry.

09.10.2007

Barclays ‘convinced’ LJ Briggs (7472 of 2006) to Illegally & criminally stay live writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411, 7472 of 2006, 6243 of 2007), at Part 20, against both Land Registry Rule 55 & Adjudicators’ Rule 8 (1,2,3).

06.12.2007 The AP1 Form was legally declared fraudulent in Guy v Mace & Jones (Ch/2007/app/521). 16.01.2008

Mowschenson’s Order 24 (HC07CO2121) was criminal & illegal as Barclays had no legal charge at this date. Criminal act claiming that 23rd of March 2005 was fully registered. Barclays won on repeated perjuries & misrepresentations, on a Criminal UN4 application, to remove adjudicated & satisfied UN1.

Land Registry’s Illegal & Criminal Manipulation Of The Land Register on 4th of March 2008 04.03.2008

Point 3 of the Criminal & Illegal 16th January 2008, Order 24 (HC07CO2121) was used to remove the UN1 to ‘unfreeze’ the Register, with the criminal & illegal ‘cancelation’ & ‘retake’ of the 13th of April 2005 Restrictions on 4th of March 2008, 13th April 2005 was not returned to its original date until August 2008, allowing several organised criminal acts with intent to be completed, in order to ‘cure’ the 22nd June 2004 & 8th of March 2005 ‘Charges’ to be ‘substantively registered’, plus used to win 9th April 2008 Barclays v Guy’s appeal and to illegally & criminally blow live writ 6LS51776 to oblivion without judgment. The Land Registry knew they were committing criminal act in aiding & abetting Barclays in this very serious criminal act.

06.03.2008

Guy v Pannone on 6th of March 2008, Pannone v Guy (DJ Khan) in May 2006, and/or Pannone v Guy (DJ Whitfield on 29th of January 2007, and/or Guy v Pannone (DJ Langan) on 28th of November 2007 and Pannone v Guy (DJ Behrens) on 4th of January 2008. Why has no one charged Mr. Megaw? Why not?

09.04.2008 Appeal (A3/2008/0120), Criminal as No ‘Charges’, won based on outright perjuries with intent. 24.07.2008

KPMG’s objection to the Restriction withdrawn, thus we must pass judgment on live writ 6LS51776 and authorities must give direction for 12 years of damages. The land Registry must change registered owner.

06.08.2008 Fraud completed, Restriction illegally registered, live writ 6LS51776 criminally blown to oblivion. 08.12.2010 Appeal (A3/2008/0120(B), Criminal as No ‘Charges’, won based on outright perjuries with intent. 24.04.2012 LJ Blackburne (HC09C00788) found all the transfer fraudulent & all lawyers guilty, but went onto quantum?

68




Barclays v Guy’s Criminal Conclusion

BARCLAYS LOST THEIR PRIORITY ON 29TH OF MARCH 2005 WHEN MR. GUY’S UN1 WERE REGISTERED (6TH ON DAYLIST). DLA applied for extension of Barclays’ priority on the same day, but were too late (7th on Daylist). DLA confirmed Barclays’ ‘Charges’ were not ‘registered’ on 19th of July 2005, when they applied for priority extension, heard on 12th of October 2005 in Gibraltar (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar). Although Barclays knew they could never get their ‘Charges’ registered, due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 Restriction terms, “No disposition of the register stated by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of any registered charge is to be registered without a written consent signed by Trevor Guy...” they still criminally went onto raise £125m from Mezzanine Finance, using Mr. Guy’s land as security. HAVING CRIMINALLY RAISED THE £125M, BARCLAYS’ CRIMINAL TEAM WENT TO WORK, TO CRIMINALLY ATTEMPT TO STEAL MR. GUY’S LAND and send him bankrupt. Mr. Guy has been through 7 bankruptcies with 11 repossessions on his house. All his bankruptcies were by lawyers who signed the criminal Loan Agreement, dated 27th of July 2005. Once bankrupt, the ‘Trustee’ would ‘finish him’ exactly as what Mr. Lucas is criminally trying to do, backed by DJ Woods. Charade of illegal chicanery documented, provides proofs that all the ‘Principal Protectors’, ‘Watchers’ & ‘Witness Bearers’, the Judiciary, the Land Registry, the policing authorities, the monitoring authorities, & the licensed ‘professionals’, all fettering & fostering a complete contempt against the provisions granted under the Rule of Law. ALL MINISTERS, AUTHORITIES & THE COURTS TURNED & ARE STILL UNLAWFULLY TURNING BLIND EYES TO THIS MASSIVE ONGOING FRAUD, WHY? The courts needed full information before they could have made any reasoned decisions, instead the courts did not query disclosures or ask any real questions, simply accepted professional credibility and standing over the words of an individual. Judge Langan described Mr. Guy as being “on a crusade”, District Judge Khan held Mr. Guy’s request for the ‘truth’ and ‘a trial to test the evidence’ to be ‘noble but meaningless’. A crusade for the truth, for real justice and to be protected from professional and organised fraud is not only every person’s right, but it forms the very backbone of our legal system and without it our courts & our authorities would not be ‘fit for purpose’. THIS CASE IS ESSENTIALLY IS ABOUT WHETHER BARCLAYS WERE REALLY THE ‘INNOCENT’ CHARGEE OR WERE THEY THE REAL MASTERS, fully aiding & abetting ‘Luqman's’ criminal activities, for their own criminal gain. The findings of the law in respect in this case have been extremely hostile and criminal in several respects. The ‘judges’ were 'ultra vires' as they clearly knew that fraud had been committed and fraud cannot be judged on summary judgment or a statutory demand. The documents relating to the fraudulent transfer of the land are patently forged in crucial respects, and often accepted by the courts as forgeries with forgery often repeated in all ‘Luqman's’ activities. Any competent, qualified person who would have looked at the TR1 form, the route of title, the contract, the AP1 form, the removal of loans without consent, would have noted that the charges registered were wholly illegal & criminal. These along with the fraudulent survey meant that Barclays should not have accepted the Ten Acres Lane security as the transfer was clearly fraudulent. LJ Mowschewson has been seen indulging in suspicious ‘late night chats’ in the ‘plumber’s case’, a case he was involved in, but forced to resign as he was exposed. LJ Lloyd is being investigated for having money, not accounted for. SECTION 54(4) OF THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 1999 MEANS MR. GUY’S PURSUIT FOR JUSTICE HAS BEEN CRIMINALLY BLOCKED AT EVERY JURISDICTION, with no right of appeal under the guise of ‘finality’. This is despite there being no trial and short-swift proceedings behind closed doors, with no disclosure or examination of the syndicate. In the public interest, Barclays and their criminal team should be held accountable for their failings and their criminality, yet instead they criminally receive the right to Mr. Guy’s land. There is a lapse in structured and effective communication, resulting in the mass of governmental bodies with no constructive ability to address the root of the problems. It appears to be a case of “passing the buck”, yet the “buck” stops nowhere. There is no accountability & it is we, the public that suffer. All UK’s ministers & authorities are toothless & spineless, forever making sure nothing good is ever done and/or achieved. LEGAL EXTORTION, OBTAINING MONEY BY DECEPTION: Linklaters (K. Bradford) represented Barclays and claimed £406,000 (‘legal theft’) in fees for a one day summary judgment hearing, which they won based on deceit and perjuries as they had no legal ‘Charges’. This was ‘obtaining’ money by ‘deception’ in order to bankrupt Mr. Guy, and should not be treated lightly by any of the relevant ministers & authorities. Linklaters (Katie Bradford) criminally abused Order 24 & Section 58 of the 2002 Land Act. Barclays & their criminal agents criminally also contaminated the Judiciary by flying over a ‘bent’ Judge (LJ Mowschenson) from Gibraltar (not familiar with the case) to pass illegal & criminal judgment, to be revisited under Judicial Review. Barclays and its criminal agents should be charged as they have corrupted the court process by perjuries and perverting the true course of justice. All the statements of truth, all evidence and all judgments based on perjuries were criminal in their entirety. Why has Ms. K Bradford not been barred and/or arrested? All ‘Protectors’ must provide corrective actions to restore justified justice and generational good for all or they are ‘not fit for purpose’.

69




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Illegal Ruling By ‘Sir’ William Blackburne In Guy v Lawyers (HC09C00788) IF YOU WANT TO SEE A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A JUDGE, COUNCILS AND DEFENDANTS ALL CRIMINLLY WORKING TOGETHER TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS CRIMINAL ACTIONS WITH MORE CRIMINAL ACTIONS THAN THIS IS IT: Please fully read Guy v Lawyers Hearing and Guy v Lawyers Blackburne’s Judgment before proceeding any further. On 13th of March 2009, Guy raised a claim against George Davies, Weightman Vizards and Mace & Jones. White Knights Consortium has never seen such a catalogue of professional negligence with criminal intent and professional misconduct with criminal intent, topped with judicial ignorance with criminal intent and professional incompetence with criminal intent. It is a legal compulsory obligation for all authorities to clinically dissect this criminal case & take actions.

1. ALL STAGES OF THE TRANSACTIONS SET OFF FRAUD WARNINGS EVEN TO A JUNIOR PROPERTY COUNSEL YET CRIMINALLY IGNORED WITH INTENT: Important issues were evident on a number of occasions which were missed/ignored/glossed and dismissed in a breathtakingly incompetent judgment evidencing a ‘lack of knowledge’ with criminal intent of 1) Property Law and Practice, 2) Professional Ethics, 3) Money Laundering Regulations and Compliance, 4) Corporate Law Relating To Property Transactions and 5) Mortgages.

2. COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED money laundering rules under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 3. COMPLETELY IGNORED SAR REPORTING REGULATIONS that all involved contravened SS 327,

328 and 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, failing to give Suspicious Activity Reports. 4. JUDGE CRIMINALLY TURNED BLIND EYE TO A FRAUD that was staring him in the face. 5. THE JUDGE IGNORED that the vendor’s obligation to deliver a good title and the purchaser’s obligation

to pay the purchase monies are concurrent and mutually dependant obligations. 6. ACCEPTED FALSE BIBBY’S EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS COMMON PRACTICE for a seller’s solicitor

to release a transfer signed by a seller to a buyer’s solicitor. No such practice has ever existed or exists and accepting this most certainly cannot be put down to ignorance.

7. ACCEPTED THAT HEWITT COULD HAVE ACTED FOR GUY IN PLACE OF BIBBY COMPLETELY IGNORING A CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS AS YOU CAN FIND. His acceptance of the evidence of Hewitt and Bibby, whom he seems to go out of his way to favour, and his clear prejudice against Guy are crystal clear in his much flawed criminal judgment.

8. MACE AND JONES GUILT IS CONTROVERTIBLE as they registered a fraudulently obtained TRI and criminally changed the owner ignoring all property convincing rules and regulations.

9. ACCEPTED FALSE LAWYERS EVIDENCES, WHOM HE SEEMS TO GO OUT OF HIS WAY TO FAVOUR, and his clear prejudice against Guy are crystal clear in his much flawed judgment.

10. THE JUDGE PROTECTED THE DEFENDANTS whenever Guy got them in the corner. 11. WHEN GUY HAD HEWITT IN THE CORNER, HEWITT WAS EXCUSED FROM THE STAND with a sick

leave and alarmingly never brought back to the stand during the 14 days trial. 12. THE OUTRAGEOUS RESULT of the summary hearings against Guy was that you cannot leave signed

documents with your solicitor and 21 million registered property owners are at risk of fraud without remedy or compensation and lawyers can put blame on their clients with perjuries.

13. WHEN ALL FAILED THE JUDGE STATED GUY GOT FULLY PAID ON YET ANOTHER FALSE VALUATION. False land valuation of some £8m was used to state Guy was paid in full yet Barclays were using £35m for the same land and Guy had offers from PLC’s companies exceeding £20m. Ignored that deposits are always forfeited if a transaction does not complete. The judgment is so flawed that it is realistically impossible to say it was incompetence or ignorance.

LJ BLACKBURNE’S STATEMENT OF TRUTH A FEEBLE ATTEMPT AT LAW TO COVER UP THE CONSPIRACY USING WEIGHT AND POSITION TO HIDE A CRIME, contravening the 2006 Fraud Act. Throughout this case not only has the judge criminally erred but numerous professional councils have acted so far outside the scope of their professional duties it is tantamount to a conspiracy to defraud. There has been, and it is still ongoing repeated deception, perjury and manipulation of the court system by all involved.

70




Fraudulent Cases To Be Fully Investigated (1) “fraus omnia corrumpit” Vitiates All Judgments, Contracts And All Transactions Whatsoever. Fraud was cited in all of the cases yet illegally & criminally ignored by all the judges. Fraud cases must be heard by a Jury. The Fraud Graphs clearly shows that more money was allowed to be laundered after it was reported to the CPS, the DTI and to Barclays in Pearl v HCW’s (4MA70055). KPMG were paid £500,000 bribe for forensic investigation which they miserably failed to do with criminal intent as shown in KPMG’s Complicity. KPMG failed to bring any actions against any ‘professional’ in the past 8 years. KPMG committed the crimes and then they were appointed to police their own criminal activities. How can the thief investigate his own theft & report? The following fraudulent cases were created by ‘professionals’ representing their fraudulent work through the civil procedures court to acquire fraudulent judgments which do not stand up to ‘Res Judicata’ and have to be revisited by the Judicial Review Committee and The Serious Fraud Office Court team as follows:

1. Guy v Ten Acres Limited (6LS51776’ 6LS30411; 7472 of 2006; 6243 of 2007) dated the 2nd of March 2006. Disclosure was supposed to take place over December 2009 and January 2010, but the case was stayed due to bankruptcy order. The stay should have been lifted well before now under Land Registry Rule 55, which clearly states that, ‘each application must be heard in the order it was received’. The administrators’ withdraw their objection on the 24th of July 2008, therefore judgment should be entered, ‘Res Judicata’ with direction for damages and/or the case transferred to the criminal court with additional perpetrators added. Flaunting Rule 55 carries a five years sentence and yet despite this rule being openly flaunted by many, many ‘professionals’ not a single person has been charged. Why?

2. Guy v Mace & Jones (I/A 8 of 2007) dated the 23rd of April 2007. Mr. Maharaj tried to frustrate the theft issue as much as he could, never addressing the real issues on the theft and the law.

3. Guy v Mace & Jones (Ch/2007/app/521) dated the 6th of December 2007. Mace n Jones refused to

give any information to Guy regarding the theft of his ‘Land’. Guy obtained pre-action disclosure.

4. Barclays v Guy (HC07CO2121) dated the 16th of January 2008, was criminal & illegal court case as Barclays did not have any legal ‘Charges’ on this date. This case could not proceed without 6LS1776 first being heard as per land Registry’s Rule 55 and Adjudicator’s Rule 8 - 1, 2, 3. Fraud cases cannot be dealt on Order 24 with summary judgment, they must be heard by a Jury. Criminal UN4 application, to remove adjudicated & satisfied UN1 was used by Barclays, KPMG, DLA & Linklaters claiming that ‘Charges’ were fully registered on 23rd of March 2005, yet we know that they were not registered on 21st of July 2005 by their own admission with their priority extension application heard on 12th of October 2005 (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), won on perjuries, misrepresentations and breaking late registration rules with the company being insolvent. LJ Mowschenson & Ms. K. Bradford should be immediately suspended & fully investigated for their part in this highly complex, premeditated, organised, money laundering, terrorist financing, industrial scale fraud.

5. Guy v Barclays Appeal (A3/2008/0120), dated the 14th of April 2008, was criminal court case as

Barclays did not have any legal ‘Charges’ on this date. Fraud cases cannot be dealt on Order 24 with summary judgment or oral hearing, they must be heard by a Jury. The judges found the TRI fraudulent and turned ‘voidable’ to ‘void’ transaction, stating that the land could go back in Mr. Guy’s name (criminally refused by the Land Registry) but the criminal ‘Charges’ must remain. If Mr. Guy can prove Barclays had knowledge, then even the ‘Charges’ could be removed. We have systematically proved that not only did Barclays have knowledge, but they were the real masters of the whole fraud. Please see Barclays Knowledge Before They Took Their ‘Charges’ (File 4) and Barclays’ Complicity (File 15). LJ Lloyds is being investigated for money in his accounts that cannot be accounted for.

6. Barclays v Guy (A3/2008/0120(B), dated 8th of December 2010 was criminal as no legal ‘Charges’.

71




Fraudulent Cases To Be Fully Investigated (2)

7. Pannone v Guy, 3rd of December 2009. Please read Pannone’s Complicity before proceeding. Mr. Guy had paid Pannone £122,000 in 2005 and £110,000 in 2006. Pannone had charged well over £500,000, whilst acting against Mr. Guy throughout, yet they were found innocent. How? a) Pannone had received positive opinion in April 2005 from Jonathan Small QC and a positive advice

in December 2005 from James Guthrie QC, which they criminally hid from Mr. Guy for 4 years. Had Pannone followed Mr. Guy’s written instructions and QC freezing advice to freeze Pearl’s accounts, Mr. Guy’s claims would have concluded much quicker.

b) Pannone held off written instructions to register a ‘caution’ until a day after Barclays ‘Charges’. c) Pannone presented provable false billing ledgers and attendance notes forgeries into court and the

court criminally refused forensic testing proving serious fraud. Case put the Judiciary into disrepute. d) DJ Khan criminally dismissed Pearl v HCW‘s case as irrelevant, when this case showed Pannone’s

fraud involvement. Pannone were Luqman’s accomplices as it was impossible for Luqman to have done the fraud without their full blessing and support, as Lexi had no signing rights on the Receipt Account. Pannone’s fraud involvement was precisely and clearly exposed by KPMG in Lexi v Pannone Pannone with intent failed on numerous occasions to do a Suspicious Activity Report.

e) Pannone continued giving Luqman their full support despite accurate knowledge of the fraud. f) Pannone with intent sent funds to Luqman’s private account even though explicitly told not to. g) Payments after payments show that Pannone were cooking the books and were in total control of

Lexi’s funds & fraud. Pannone made payments for bribes yet not pursued by KPMG or authorities. h) Pannone should have forced Pearl’s closure by end 2002 instead of criminally helping to increase the

facility from £2.5m-£100m after full knowledge of fraud, apparently with no due diligence. i) Pannone committed serious criminal acts by gagging HCW’s Letter of Circumstances. j) Pannone further proved their guilt by signing of the 4th version of the Loan Agreement. k) Pannone settled the £43m claim against them by Barclays for just £9m by invoking “ex turpi causa”

against Barclays. This fully confirms Pannone’s involvement yet no action by authorities.

8. Halliwells v Guy on 11th of December 2009, Halliwells pursue claims for fees on summary Judgment for their charges totalling over £60,000 in fees for the six months of work. Halliwells were clearly conflicted as they had previously acted for Mr. Luqman in trying to forward sell Mr. Guy's land for £26m. Halliwells unbelievably also had Mr. Guy's signed TRI Form before and after the ‘sale completed’. Halliwells were also Mr. Luqman's lawyers when the HCW’s judgment was reported. Mr. Paul Marco of Halliwells perjured in court, backed by six witness statements, stating that their firm had no conflict of interest. Judge Langan QC gave no weight to the fact that Mr Marco's statements were false nor gave any weight to the possibility that Halliwells were incontrovertibly involved in the fraud or even considered that at the very least they were witnesses to the whole fraud. DJ Langan accepted the fact that Halliwells should not have acted for Mr. Guy, yet ignores this in his judgment of not guilty? How? Permission to appeal the decision was refused on 11th of December 2009 by the Court of Appeal, despite incontrovertible proof of Halliwells involvement in ‘Luqman’s’ massive fraud.

9. Guy v Lawyers, (Mace & Jones, Weightman and George Davies) (HC09C00788), dated the 24th of April 2012. Pannone’s Complicity, George Davis’ Complicity, Weightman Vizard’s Complicity and Mace & Jones’ Complicity showed each party guilty, so how could they all get away scot free?

10. HMRC v Guy (64 of 2015), 30th of September 2015, 28th of September 2016 & 4th of January 2017.

Illegal ‘pre birth’ tax demanded by the Treasury breaking rank when Mr. Guy was in a IVA. DJ Hart failed to judge 89 pages of revenant fraudulent documents and illegally made Mr. Guy bankrupt. She was illegally backed by Justice Rose & HMs Courts & Tribunal Service President, Sir Brian Leverson. DJ Woods criminally extends the bankruptcy based on the Trustee, Mr. Lucas’ perjuries, yet all the ‘protectors’ of the law illegally acting as muted mutes, for which they must face the full force of the law.

72




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Whether Luqman Was The Real Mastermind?

Luqman (Pawn)

THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE REPORTS, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT LUQMAN WAS THE REAL MASTERMIND behind this major fraud, and subsequently fled to Pakistan. Could a twice convicted jailbird without any financial ability do all the things attributed to him in this highly complex, organised, controlled, money laundering, terrorist financing, industrial scale fraud of his own accord; whilst remarkably ‘apparently’ managing to pass all due diligence checks and SAR requirements over an eight years period between 1998-2006. Could he really, of his own accord, launder (post 9/11 and POCA), in excess of over £53M to Pakistan, over an incredible period of 5 years between 2001-2006; whilst committing reported fraud & perjuries half way through the fraud, as exposed in Pearl v HCW (4MA70055) in Oct 2004. Is this really possible? TRULLY SHOCKING IN IT SCALE AND AUDACITY UNDER THE NOSES OF ALL: In 2007, Lexi’s fraud was described by LJ Briggs in Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 1 as, “truly shocking in its scale and audacity in that the fraud occurred, “under the noses of (Luqman’s) auditors, solicitors and funding bankers.” Is it genuinely a reasonable assumption to make that all these experienced and highly qualified bankers, solicitors, auditors, working for top-tier firms, as well as Mr. Luqman's highly experienced fellow directors, were all duped, and can all simply bypass any liability by saying ‘they really didn’t know’ especially in a bridging company with its normal controls & mechanisms (security - loan)? THERE WERE MILLIONS OF POUNDS MISSING, THE MANAGEMENT REPORTS WERE SHAMBLES, and to further state that nobody ever heard of Mr. Luqman's criminal past seems highly unlikely? The Receipts Account, although it was designated a Lexi/Pearl’s account, was so in name only, because Lexi/Pearl/Luqman had no signing rights on it, i.e. they could not debit or credit the account. Provided everything was in order, the money was released to Lexi/Pearl's customer, and the solicitor involved sent a solicitor's confirmation direct to Barclays and a copy to Lexi/Pearl. The solicitor had to be a nominated solicitor under the Loan Agreement, and was by virtue of the solicitor’s undertakings a Barclays' agent. How then, is it possible that the Luqman brothers could possibly carry out this fraud on their own, without the full help of the solicitors chosen by Barclays and Barclays themselves ‘apparently’ not doing the simple job of matching solicitor’s conformation to the loans issued? It would have been impossible for the Luqman brothers to carry out the fraud even if they had full signing rights on the Receipt Account and the full criminal co-operation of all the solicitors, but without the will of Barclays, as outlined in the Barclays’ Complicity. IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IF ONE LOOKS AT THE FACTS IN AN UNBIASED MANNER, THE ONLY CONCLUSION ONE CAN REACH IS THAT THIS CRIME WAS FAR BEYOND THE CAPABILITIES OR POWERS OF LUQMANS ALONE and that Luqmans most certainly had help from within. The White Knights Consortium claim that the fraud was only possible because Barclays, KPMG, DLA Linklaters and Pannone were fully complicit in the fraud by orchestrating the whole fraud, whilst Barclays gained their Pakistani Banking Licence and opened 8 branches in Pakistan in 2008. Mr. Luqman initially went to Pannone LLP for help with the DTI’s case against him regarding Modern Living Limited (DTI v Luqman). Instead he was roped into the fraud by Mr. A Megaw and Mr. J Farn, who were senior partners at Pannone LLP at the time. Who wouldn’t enjoy staying in a £5 million house in Hale, driving a Bentley Continental GT, flying a Gulfstream IV business jet with all it trappings whilst the fraud went on, combined with a promise of several million pounds and a safe passage to the extradition free country of Pakistan upon completion of the fraud? Would anyone refuse such a proposal? MR. ALEX MEGAW AND MR. JAMES FARN, BOTH PREVIOUSLY OF PANNONE, WERE BEHIND THIS FRAUD FROM THE VERY INCEPTION AND WERE INDISPUTABLY AND INEXTRICABLY INVOLVED over the first few years until 30th of April 2004. In an email Joy Kingsley (Pannone’s managing partner) said in 2002 as stated in Lexi v Pannone(HC08C01319), “....I suspect he (Luqman) will use the new £20m for this and be defrauding Barclays again...”, yet despite accurate knowledge of fraud, Pannone continued giving Luqman their full support including supporting increases in the facility, whilst at the same time criminally not reporting wrongdoing, as per SAR requirements. THE FRAUD CONTINUED WITH BARCLAYS TAKING FULL CONTROL FROM JANUARY 2004, or at the very latest by March 2004 and gave the responsibility to one of their own directors namely (Marcus Palmer) Clive Gresham of Barclays, as well as Brian Green and Richard Fleming of KPMG from December 2004. It becomes clear that after Jan 2004, Barclays abetted Luqman with every tool & cover up all to keep fraud ongoing no matter whatever the real costs.

73




Pannone’s Criminality Summarised

Alex Megaw James Farn Simon McCrum Joy Kingsley Robert Glithero Soren Tatton Simon Pedley Anuksha Stone

LUQMAN HAD CONVICTIONS FOR FRAUD IN 1993 AND 1998 WHICH WERE WELL COVERED IN THE LOCAL PRESS: Please read Pannone’s Criminality before proceeding any further. Pannone were representing Luqman in DTI v Luqman (MA390410) which was criminally delayed for 6 years. Pannone should never have represented Luqman to Barclays. Many classical signs of fraud were intentionally ignored by all. Luqmans’ fraud was described by LJ Briggs in Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 1 as, “truly shocking in its scale and audacity in that the fraud occurred, “under the noses of (Luqman’s) auditors, solicitors and funding bankers.” It was impossible for Luqman to have done the fraud without the full blessing and support of Pannone as Lexi/Luqmans had no signing rights on the Barclays’ Receipt Account. LEXI V PANNONE (HC08C01319) SHOWED EXPLICIT FRAUD INVOLVEMENT BY PANNONE: Pannone were major players in the fraud as they were Lexi’s lawyers from 2001 April 2004. Suspicious Activity Report on numerous occasions was criminally ignored with intent by Pannone. Mr. Alex Megaw & Mr. James Farn previously of Pannone were behind this fraud from inception and were indisputably involved over the first few years until 30th of April 2004. In an email Kingsley (Pannone’s Managing Partner – Queen’s Evidence) said in 2002 as stated in Lexi v Pannone, “....I suspect he (Luqman) will use the new £20m for this and be defrauding Barclays again...” Megaw stated in 2002 ‘My assessment of SL (Luqman) is we have to be very careful about him. I think his business ethics have been very dubious in the past. We have to play it by the book. In mid 2003, Lexi v Pannone, page 8, 11.10, “Farn commented, “.... I am sure Lucky (Luqman) can see the “evil” day approaching.” And this was near the start of Pannone's relationship, yet despite accurate knowledge of the fraud, the whole firm of Pannone's continued giving Luqman their full support in every which way. Luqman openly discusses Lexi’s fraud with Farn as if they were partners and Farn does nothing. Although explicitly told not to, Pannone with intent sent funds to Luqman’s private account. Payments after payments show that Pannone were cooking the books and were in total control of Lexi’s funds & fraud. Fraudulent payments were made for bribes and never pursued by KPMG. Pannone should have forced Pearl’s closure by end 2002 instead of criminally helping to increase the facility from £2.5m-£100m after full knowledge of fraud. Pannone resign on 30th April of 2004 immediately after raising £100m & simply pass control to Barclays. KPMG settled out of court a won claim of £43m with Pannone only paying £9m as Pannone invoke “ex turpi causa” as they had evidence that Barclays were involved as much as they were. Gagging of HCW’s was criminal act. SIGNING OF THE 4TH VERSION OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT FURTHER PROVES ALL SIGNING PARTIES’ CRIMINALITY: Pannone, Mace & Jones and Betish all knew that the Ten Acres Lane land was hotly contested by Mr. Guy and all of them should have raised the matter with Barclays, Pannone were acting (criminally obstructing) for Mr. Guy and yet they were actively signing the 4th Version of the Loan Agreement and yet no ‘Authority’ even wants to question such open criminal conflict of interest. Now the most important question is, did all the agents act fraudulently by not advising Barclays or did Barclays acted fraudulently by ignoring all parties and press on regardless in their criminality?

MEGAW CRIMINALLY ACCEPTED TO ACT FOR GUY WHEN LEGALLY HE COULDN’T: Criminal intent of delaying, obstructing with serious and strategic "failures" including; a) acting in serious conflict, b) not reporting the massive fraud to SOCA (SFO) or report any solicitor for professional misconduct despite Guy’s written instructions to do so, c) misleading the Law Society, d) not carrying out a title search, and then not informing Guy about Barclays ‘Charge’, e) ignoring Guy’s written instructions and QC freezing advice to freeze Pearl/Lexi’s accounts, f) hiding another vital QC advice for 4yrs, f) crucially Megaw, held off Guy’s written instructions dated 28th February 2005, and did not register a ‘caution’ against the ‘Land’ until 24th March 2005, a day after Barclays apparent ‘Charge’, and g) presenting provable false billing ledgers and attendance notes forgeries into court and the court criminally refuses forensic testing proving serious fraud, and ignores serious conflict of interest. Guy v Pannone appeal was swiftly dismissed by Judge Khan stating Guy's requests for the "truth" and a "trial to test the evidence" to be "noble but meaningless" and that Guy's case was "hopeless", whilst treating critical HCW’s judgment as irrelevant, stating that Victoria was "only permitted to refer to relevant law and not the evidence" and not allowing Guy's telephone records into evidence which contradicted Pannone's notes.

Mr. Megaw’s action on 4th of March 2008 is outright criminal. What is truly beguiling is that Mr. Megaw has not been questioned and charged, but is allowed to continue to commit further crimes against other individuals, the State of UK & the Sovereignty of the Monarchy.

74




KPMG’s Criminality Summarised

Brian Green – Ex- KPMG

Lead Liquidator Richard Fleming - KPMG

Joint Liquidator Glyn Baddeley - KPMG

Case Manager BARCLAYS’ BRIBE KPMG: Please read KPMG’s Criminality report before proceeding any further. KPMG criminally perjured themselves in court that they had carried out investigations into 50 loans that couldn’t be investigated and any 'leakage of value', was not primarily due to 'inefficient management' but fraud on an industrial scale. In Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), page 172, paragraph 14, “...KPMG advised Barclays...at a cost in excess of £0.5 million....” Paragraph 122, “…Palmer's...full audit...KPMG was instructed to investigate only the Loan Book (only 50 loans)...Quite extraordinarily in my view...” The fee in excess of £500,000 was a bribe by Barclays to KPMG as we fail to see any real work at all apart from carrying out a charade. The 50 loans “investigated” couldn’t be investigated as there was nothing to investigate as all loans were fraudulently secured on Ten Acres Lane land, with no solicitors’ conformation, no real party to phone, in effect nothing. Further KPMG ‘apparently’ didn’t investigate money in and out of accounts or the Directors’ Loan Account or investigated Luqman\Lexi either, nor contacted any auditors, so in reality KPMG did nothing. KPMG didn't quite say everything was all right, but they didn't come out and say what they should have said fraud, fraudster either. Barclays and KPMG’s forensic departments should have carried out a full analysis on Lexi, based on the “theoretical possibility” of fraud. What proportion of the loans matured as expected? How were they pursued? Lack of reference to solicitors' confirmations, and the fact that the extract of the loan book was anything other than farcical at the time of KPMG’s report is clear evidence of criminal acts by both Barclays & KPMG. DLA samples of the loan book were totally different. Why? MONTHLY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS PROVE BARCLAYS’ AND KPMG’S CRIMINALITY: The management accounts of Lexi’s must have been a shambles when KPMG inspected the books in 2005 if they existed at all. It would have been impossible to make them reconcilable with the accounts in the real world, and, therefore, didn't exist, thus further proving both Barclay and KPMG’s criminality. KPMG couldn't be sure whether the fraud amounted to £50m or over £100m, even after 560 page report and £5m (bribe?) in investigation fees, how? IMPOSSIBLE KPMG DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT HCW: KPMG knew about HCW due to certain condition in the 4th version of the Loan Agreement which was overhauled by KPMG but ‘publically’ had to deny any knowledge. HCW showed fraud involving the Directors’ Loan Account thus, any accounts for the year ending 31st December 2004 could not represent 'true and fair value'. KPMG from their own investigations knew the accounts to be false yet didn’t have them corrected. Both Barclays and KPMG criminally withheld HCW ’s information from KLSA in order to get accounts for 2003. JOKE SURVEY: The survey was internally inconsistent and outwardly unjustifiable, done on the same day as instructed, yet accepted by both Barclays & KPMG. Both should have questioned how a land bought for £5m & subsequent apparent purchase of £15m is suddenly valued at £35m, all in the space of 9 months. It is entirely unrealistic & beyond imagination that the largest property transaction would not have been scrutinized, and alarmingly, Barclays & KPMG are supposed to be ignorant to the fact that none of the £15 million was paid. Possible? DLA knew that the basis of the agreement was a sham as the charge on Ten Acre Limited, did not exist on 27th July 2005 and never could due to Mr. Guy’s Restrictions. PERJURY BY BARCLAYS & KPMG: Gresham of Barclays and Green of KPMG both told Judge Briggs that they chose the 'co-operative' route rather than the 'enforcement' route. However the 4th version of the Loan Agreement clearly represented the 'enforcement route', which wasn't enforced due to DLA’s error on registering the ‘Charge’. KPMG were clearly conflicted being the administrator whilst being criminally active throughout. KPMG were hardly likely to prosecute themselves for poor reports or Barclays for not winding up Lexi after HCW. Post-liquidation set-up allowed all Barclays’ and KPMG’s criminal acts to be suppressed, including Barclays’ fraudulent charge date to persist to this very day. OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT: KPMG won a claim against Pannone for £43m in Lexi v Pannone (HC08C01319), yet settled with Pannone paying just £9m. Why? Prosecution of KLSA, PKF, PWC, DLA, independent Board members would have revealed further criminal acts by KPMG. Both Barclays & KPMG have ignored Land Registry Rule 55 and are now are trying to force Land Registry to brake the laws and allow them to sale the land. Barclays and KPMG’s Board have been fully informed of the theft, yet continue to market Mr. Guy’s land, making them guilty of reset.

75




DLA’s Criminality Summarised

Paul Fleming - DLA Crispen Jones – DLA

DLA were and are right in the middle of this whole ongoing fraud

KPMG AND DLA PIPER APPOINTED AS EARLY AS 2004: Please read DLA’s Criminality before proceeding any further. Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 121, “The matter was reviewed at a meeting between representatives of the syndicate banks on 16th December (2004), at which it was decided to appoint KPMG to investigate the state of Lexi's Loan Book. At the same time Barclays instructed solicitors (DLA) to advise in particular on the question whether an event of default under the facility agreement was available to the banks, to enable the lending to be demanded early, and enforcement measured taken, if that becomes the preferred strategy.” MANY CONNECTED SOLICITORS, AUDITORS AND JUDGES WILL TOPPLE LIKE DOMINOS: Throughout this case DLA have acted so far outside the scope of their professional duties; that it is tantamount to fraud. Organised criminal acts and perjuries were performed on a regular basis with no fear of recrimination. Each officer was supposedly meant to be a ‘professional’, and as such their work came under the jurisdiction of many regulatory bodies and they should therefore be legally responsible for their actions and/or inactions. DLA had ample opportunity to stop Mr. Luqman well before the incredible amounts of money were laundered to Pakistan, and well before the theft of Mr. Guy’s £30m land, but instead they chose to work with the pawn they created, based purely on greed with total disregard for the law of the land. GIBRALTAR DOCUMENT PROVES BARCLAYS’, KPMG’S AND DLA’S CRIMINALITY: Gibraltar Document (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar) proves that Barclays’ ‘Charge’ dated 8th of March 2005 is an illegal ‘Charge’, criminally relied upon in all of the court cases by Barclays. DLA must have contacted Hassans before 19th of July 2005, so they knew that the basis of the Loan Agreement dated 27th of July 2005 was outright criminal as they were no ‘Charges’ registered on Ten Acre Lane’s land and could never be due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 restrictions. KPMG prepared the 4th Version of the Loan Agreement with the help of DLA, so both parties committed outright criminal acts by signing the 27th of July 2005 Loan Agreement and getting others to do so, in order to raise £125m from Mezzanine Finance, using Mr. Guy’s Ten Acre Lane land as security without having any legal ‘Charges’ whatsoever. IN 2013, KPMG & DLA CRIMINALLY ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE MR. GUY'S RESTRICTION IN ORDER TO EXERCISE BARCLAYS’ CRIMINAL ‘CHARGE’. This attempt failed because the attempted finalisation of the ‘Charge’, under Gibraltar law, was 31st of October 2005 (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), but the ‘Charge’ could not be finalised due to Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 restrictions. Barclays, KPMG and DLA have deliberately and criminally concealed the actual attempted ‘Charge’ date of 31st of October 2005 for the past 11 years from Mr. Guy and all other parties. DIRECTORS’ LOAN ACCOUNT GAME: Barclays passed over the due diligence of the Directors’ Loan Account to DLA who did nothing with criminal intent. Barclays deliberately and with criminal intent chose not to follow it up as part of their risk management and due diligence procedures. In Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 124, LJ Briggs stated, “...Mr. Palmer's searching questions had been referred by Shaid to Lexi's solicitors Howard & Howard, who conducted a correspondence with DLA which, so far as I have been able to ascertain, led to no conclusive result.” This was a game in an attempt to cover their backs for ‘publically’ for not doing a check on the Directors’ Loan Account as the whole situation demanded and cried out for. It was very easy for Barclays to internally check the Directors’ Loan Account, or alternatively the second choice being KPMG - it most certainly should not have been DLA as they are lawyers and not forensic accountants. Criminally, ‘publically’ neither Barclays, nor its entire team nor KPMG ‘apparently’ did any due diligence on Luqman or Lexi either, nor did they do any real internal audits, nor look into misdirected money. Is this really believable? Any genuine checks would have revealed the rampant fraud and forced Lexi’s closure. DLA AND LINKLATERS HAVE BOTH COMMITED A CRIME AND HAVE FORCED THE LAND REGSTRY TO COMMIT A FRAUD in their attempt to sell the land as shown in the Land Registry letter dated 30th of April 2005. They have committed further criminal acts in getting Eddison to attempt to sell Mr Guy’s land with false representation & Eddisons are doing the same. Mr. John Padgett should be arrested as he has been put on criminal notice for marketing the land.

76




Linklaters’ Criminality Summarised

Katie Bradford, Senior Partner at Linklaters LLP Simon Hartley

FRAUD CASES CANNOT BE JUDGED ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THEY MUST BE HEARD BY A JURY: Please read Linklaters’ Criminality before proceeding any further in this report. Summary application by Barclays’ agents was a procedural tactic to restrain vital evidence coming before the Court. Ms. Katie Bradford had already stated that the summary judgment hearing was “about the law and procedure Mr. Guy, not about the truth”. If that was the case why was this massive organised fraud case tried on summary judgment as opposed to a full trial? Further Ms. Bradford was advised on

that Barclays’ claim is illegal with back-up material, criminally ignored. On 22nd of January 2008, Mr. Guy wrote to her congratulating her for making fraud legal with full explanation, yet criminally ignored. On 5th of February 2008, Mr. Guy sent yet another letter to Linklaters putting their client Barclays on fraud notice, yet criminally ignored. On 9th of July 2008, Mr. Guy yet again informs Ms. Bradford regarding money laundering and them abusing their professional code of conduct, yet ignored by Ms. Bradford and Barclays. On 2nd of December 2013, Mr. Guy informed Linklaters regarding Gibraltar documents and yet they criminally ignore all and try and help Barclays attempt to sale Ten Acres Lane land and all ‘Authorities’ fail to take any action whatsoever. Is this the British justice praised all over the world?

BRADFORD COMMITTED THREE PERJURIES TO WIN THE CASE NAMELY: 1) The true ‘Charge’ date was 8th March 2005 instead of 31st Oct 2005 (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar), Barclays’ Charge is a criminal ‘Charge,’ relied upon by Barclays in all cases. 2) The second perjury by Ms. Bradford was in paragraph 37, “The decision of Mr. Justice (sic) Howart of 27 October 2004...was unreported', Barclays received HCW’s judgment on 12th Nov 2004 as stated in Lexi v Luqmans (HC06C04067), paragraph 118, LJ Briggs states, “…its receipt of the 12th November letter from HCW…”. The third perjury was with regard to the fraud content of HCW’s judgment, paragraph 21 of Ms. Bradford’s second statement dated 13th November 2007, 'The resignation letter of the auditors of Lexi ...does not...go as far as to report that Pearl/Luqman were falsifying documents and making fraudulent VAT claims with intent to deceive. Fraud is not referred to in the letter or in the Statement of Circumstances...” That is manifestly false as it was stated in Pearl v HCW (4MA70055), page 24, line 16, "...clear an abuse of the process of this court as it would be possible to find...dishonesty...fraudulent documents...perjury...clear a case involving those as any I have come across for a long time...number of criminal offences....pass over to the Crown Prosecution Service…" In Lexi v Luqmans, p 105, LJ Briggs sums up the fraud, “Although politely phrased, the Statement of Circumstances shows that HCW had

serving letters from builders in cahoots with him or, more simply, by fabricating those letters.” Barclays & Ms. Bradford committed perjuries with intent as all Ms. Bradford’s statements were manifestly false in order to win.

LEGAL EXTORTION, OBTAINING MONEY BY DECEPTION: Linklaters represented Barclays and claimed £406,000 (legal theft to be investigated) in legal fees for a one day summary judgment hearing, which they won based on deceit and perjuries. This was surely "obtaining” money by deception" in order to bankrupt Mr. Guy, and shouldn’t be treated lightly by any of the relevant ‘Authorities’. This should be thoroughly investigated by the Serious Fraud Office as Barclays & Linklaters knew these were perjuries. Making a person criminally bankrupt is one of the most serious crimes.

BRADFORD HAD TO KNOW AS SOON AS “FRAUS OMNIA CORRUMPIT” IS CITED, ORDER 24 BECOMES INVALID: Yet with knowledge Ms. Bradford, KPMG, DLA & Barclays have managed to force the Land Registry to commit a criminal acts and allow them to sell the land under the criminal LJ Mowschewson illegal Order 24. Ms. Bradford has been fully informed as the top 8 at Barclays about the full details of the fraud yet they continue with their criminal action of attempting to sell the land. Ms. Bradford also had to know that there was no Unilateral Notice at the time of the judgment but she did not bring this to LJ Mowschewson’s attention. After charging Mr. Guy £406,000, it would have been impossible for an experienced senior partner such as Ms. Bradford not to have known the case was illegal in its entirety as it broke Land Registry’s Rule 55 and Adjudicator’s rule 8 -1, 2, 3 and if she knew, then her actions are criminal to say the least. DLA AND LINKLATERS HAVE BOTH COMMITED A CRIME AND HAVE FORCED THE LAND REGISTRY TO COMMIT A FRAUD in their attempt to sell the land as shown in the Land Registry letter dated 30th of April 2005. Linklaters, Barclays, KPMG, DLA and the Land Registry are caught red handed in the criminal act of attempting to sell the land after full fraud knowledge. Linklaters’ Ms. K Bradford has taken a very active role in the 4th March 2008 criminality.

77




George Davis’ Criminality Summarised

Paul Bibby of George Davis

ORIGINAL TEN ACRES LANE LAND SALES MEETING: Please read George Davis’ Criminality before proceeding any further. On 15th of April 2004, Mr. Mick Hewitt of Weightman Vizards was appointed to act on for Pearl and since Mr. Hewitt couldn’t act for both parties, Mr. Hewitt introduced Mr. Guy to Mr. Paul Bibby of George Davis. On 19th of April 2004, Mr. Guy, Mr. Bibby, Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Shaid Luqman and Mr. Waheed Luqman met at All-Bar-One in Manchester, to negotiate and finalise all necessary steps towards the completion of the Ten Acre Lane land sale. MR. GUY SIGNED THE DOCUMENTS WITH THE EXPRESS UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE TO BE HELD IN ESCROW TO MR. GUY’S ORDER VIA MR. PAUL BIBBY. At the meeting, due to Mr. Guy going away for two weeks business trip during the completion period, Mr. Guy was asked to sign a blank Transfer (TR1 form) & a blank Contract with no dates or figures inserted, with a view that the details would be inserted when Mr. S. Luqman had the full information on Ten Acre Limited. The blank pieces of paper were only authorised to become powers of attorney for Mr. Bibby to execute the transfer in Mr. Guy’s absence. A High Court Judge commented that leaving a blank TRI form and blank contract with the solicitor was a bad idea. If you cannot leave legal valuable documents with the Court officers, as lawyers are, than how can the British legal corporate and personal business operate from this point forward? Please see original signed TRI Form for £10m. MR. BIBBY CRIMINALLY HANDS OVER THE SIGNED TRI FORM TO MR. HEWITT: Mr. Bibby claims he passed the signed TRI form to Mr. Hewitt (denied by Mr. Hewitt) during the meeting in order to get details from Mr. Luqman and have it completed as is the usual practice (no such practice exists and never has), even though he was expressly told that he and he alone is responsible for this and is to be held in escrow awaiting Mr. Guy’s release order instructions. Mr. Bibby was found not guilty. Suppose this was a £10m cashier cheque and Mr. Bibby had passed over to a fraudster, would he be responsible? Offcourse he would be responsible, so why was he found not guilty in Guy v Lawyers (HC09C00788)? MR. BIBBY CRIMINALLY HANDS OVER MR. GUY’S COMPLETE FILE TO MR.LUQMAN: On 17th of June 2004, Mr. Bibby received abortive fees from Pearl in relation to the aborted sale, however, in return for the fees, Mr. Bibby releases the file with Mr. Guy’s Signed Contract, yet he claims he retained the original and sent the draft. Now a very important question we have here is then how did Pearl get the original contract which Mr. Bibby in his witness statement confirmed as original? Is perjury by Lawyers accepted as a norm by all ‘Protectors’ of the law or do we have a two tier law system? MR. HEWITT CLAIMS THAT MR. BIBBY IS LYING: Mr. Mike Hewitt claims he never had the TRI form as both the contract and the TRI forms must remain with the seller’s lawyers at all times. He completely washes his hands of this and claims he had no dealings what-so-ever. He however accepts as per Pearl’s request, he sent back all Ten Acres Lane land files to Mr. Luqman for ‘audit’ purposes. The first point we need to clarify here is who has more reason to lie? During 2004/5 in certain Cheshire ‘barn’ deal handled by Weightmans and Betesh, one barn was mysteriously stolen and transferred to Mr. Hewitt from Pearl/Lexi, Why? Further how did Mr. Hewitt get partnership offered to him in Betesh, being relative inexperienced? Was it perhaps with a fraudulent loan to Betesh of £3m from Pearl? Where did Mr. Hewitt suddenly get money for new expensive car, house, holidays, etc.? Why did Mr. Hewitt get interviewed twice by the Serious Fraud Office’s squad? Why has he moved to Singapore? WHY DID MR. BIBBY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ‘STATEMENT OF TRUTHS’? Mr. Bibby was fully aware that HBOS had withdrawn their facility to Mr. Luqman and that the sale had aborted. Yet he knowingly goes along with Mr. Luqman’s plan. His guilt is obvious when you analyze his two different ‘Statement of Truths’ in Guy v Lawyers (HC09C00788), yet no ‘Authority’ even wants to look at this very serious crime and Mr. Bibby is free to continue in his profession doing the same to other innocent victims by tarnishing their names and leading them to hell & back without any remorse whatsoever.

78




Mace & Jones’ Criminality Summarised

Varun Maharaj (API/SDLT/DSI)

Philip Farrelly

SENIOR PARTNER & WRITES “SALE OF LAND” CHAPTER IN KELLY’S DRAFTMAN: Please read Mace & Jones’ Criminality before proceeding any further. Mr. Varun Maharaj is a senior partner at Mace & Jones and writes the "Sale of Land" chapter in the practitioner's text Kelly's Draftsman, so Mr. Maharaj is highly experienced lawyer and his actions cannot in anyway be deemed to be incompetent. In our opinion Mr. Maharaj and Mr. Farelly were paid, as stated in Lexi v Pannone (HC08C01319), page 18, 20.4, “Pannone transferred £3,350,000...to Messrs Mace & Jones...”, without any traceable paperwork and never returned as far as we can ascertain and not pursued by KPMG either. The transfer was fraudulently obtained by Mr. Farrelly, who submitted the stolen TRI to HM Land Registry & Mr. Maharaj presented the SDLT/DSI/API to the Land Registry.

1. Being expressly informed by Bibby that the sale had aborted on 21st June 2004, day before the theft and, 2. Lack of any exchanged contracts and, 3. No power of attorney and, 4. No completion statement and, 5. No searches what-so-ever carried out and, 6. No environmental certificate and, 7. No survey report and, 8. No planning documents and, 9. No title deeds and, 10. Wasn’t even aware that Ten Acre Limited was a Gibraltar registered company and, 11. Pearl/Ten Acres loan breaches 330 of Companies Act, and yet Mr. Maharaj continues with theft! 12. Unrepresented seller as Mr. Guy at this time didn’t have any lawyer acting for him and, 13. No consideration passing through their firm’s accounts nor through Mr. Guy’s account and, 14. Not even questioning the executed TR1 form on file and, 15. Criminally discharges Mr. Guy’s loans without Mr. Guy’s authority or knowledge and doesn’t inform Mr. Guy, 16. Ignores all money laundering regulations and ignores all professional ethics.

TRANSFER ILLEGALLY RUSHED WITH FAKE CORRESPONDENCES: Since the deal was being illegally rushed, Mr. Maharaj initiates Fake Correspondences. Why were 3 letters written instead of emails as the deal was settling the same day? Was this to protect his position and try to fool us in the process? Mr. Maharaj stated in his defence in Guy v Lawyers (HC09C00788) that Mr. Hewitt had acted for Mr. Guy but Mr. Hewitt adamantly denied having anything to do with the transfer. Mr. Hewitt whose department had closed, had no instructions either written or implied, a solicitor who was also instructed by Pearl Holdings to act on behalf of Ten Acre Ltd, Gibraltar, couldn’t possible represent Mr. Guy also. MR. MAHARAJ’S INCOMPETENT CRIMINAL EXCUSES: Mr. Maharaj claims that he telephoned Mr. Hewitt (Why Mr. Hewitt and not Mr. Guy?) on the day of the transfer, being 22nd of June 2004 at about 12pm and in a 45 seconds phone call with Mr. Hewitt, he was satisfied enough to go ahead with £15m transfer in the most extraordinary of circumstances that go totally against all UK solicitors’ code of conduct and money laundering laws. Mr. Hewitt claims that since he was moving to Betesh on 26th June 2004, he took no new work. He states he was in bar during the call celebrating. MR MAHARAJ’S POTENTIAL PERJURY: Mr. Maharaj claimed in court that he was working on 22 cases for Mr. Luqman and hence the reason why he was able to complete without anything what so ever. Is this true? Then why did he send out Mace & Jones Terms of Trade to Ten Acre Limited on the same day as confirmed by his own paperwork? MR. MAHARAJ TO BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED: The AP1 Form criminally shows Mace and Jones as Mr. Guy’s solicitors, however on the objection raised to Mr. Guy’s Restriction, it shows that Weightman Vizards as Mr. Guy’s solicitors. Mr. Maharaj should have reported this to NCIS for money laundering and withdrawn. In our opinion, Mr. Maharaj & Mr. Farrelly finances should be fully investigated, questioned, arrested and charged for organised theft and jailed.

79




Weightman Vizards’ Criminality Summarised

Mike Hewitt of Weightman and Betish

Please read Weighman Vizards’ Criminality before proceeding any further.

1. MR. HEWITT CLAIMS MR. BIBBY IS LYING: Mr.Mike Hewitt claims he never had the TRI form as both the contract and the TRI forms must remain with the seller’s lawyers at all times. He completely washes his hands of this and claims he had no dealings what-so-ever. He however accepts as per Pearl’s request to send back all Ten Acre files for ‘audit’ purposes. The first point we need to clarify here is who has more reason to lie?

2. MR. MAHARAJ CLAIMS THAT MR. HEWITT CONFIRMED TO HIM THAT HE WAS WORKING FOR MR. GUY:

Mr. Maharaj claims Mr. Hewitt confirmed to him that he was acting for Mr. Guy and put this on the TRI and API forms. Why are both Mr. Bibby and Mr. Maharaj, from different law firms, pointing fingers at Mr. Hewitt?

3. During 2004/5 in certain Cheshire ‘barn’ deal handled by Weightmans and Betesh, one barn was mysteriously

stolen and transferred to Mr. Hewitt from Pearl/Lexi, Why?

4. Further how did Mr. Hewitt get partnership offered to him in Betesh, being relative inexperienced? Was it perhaps with a fraudulent loan to Betesh of £3m from Pearl?

5. Where did Mr. Hewitt suddenly get money for new expensive car, house, holidays, etc.?

6. Why was Mr. Hewitt interviewed twice by the Serious Fraud Office’s?

7. Why did he moved to Singapore and why after 10 years returned back to UK?

8. Should he not be considered for ‘Queen’s evidence’?

80




Halliwells’ Criminality Summarised

Paul Marco Keith Hobson Gareth Atkinson

HALLIWELLS WERE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS WHOLE FRAUD. Please read Halliwells’ Criminality before proceeding any further. Halliwells are the biggest Asian solicitors extensively used by Barclays. In 1986, Mr. Purvez Naveed was jailed for 9 years in a similar operation namely ‘Arrows’ but walked away with one hundred and forty million Pounds. ‘Arrows’ used Lloyds TSB Antrim brance to launder over £90m to Pakistan. Mr. Purvez like Mr. Luqman extensively used Halliwells. Halliwells took over when Pannone resigned as Lexi’s lawyers. Halliwells told Mr. Guy he had a good case against Pannone and issued professional negligence claim. Halliwells also told Mr. Guy he had a good case against Mace & Jones and issued a pre-action disclosure.

HALLIWELLS WERE CLEARLY CONFLICTED: Halliwells were clearly conflicted, having previously acted for Mr. Luqman in trying to forward sell Mr. Guy's land for £26m. Halliwells had Mr.Guy's signed TRI Form before and after the apparent ‘sale completed’. Halliwells were also Mr. Luqman's lawyers when the HCW’s judgment was reported. Halliwells were also Mr. Luqman’s lawyers when he was awarded the Entrepreneur of the Year in 2004. DJ Langan accepted the fact that Halliwells should not have acted for Mr. Guy, yet ignores this in his judgment. Halliwells, Pannone and Shulmans LLP were all instructed to find out how a land could be transferred without the owner's consent. Not one ‘professional’ solicitor managed although they were happily charging out extortionate bankrupting fess, to be fully investigated by the appropriate UK’s ‘Authority’? OUTRIGHT CHARGABLE CRIMINAL ACTS BY HALLIWELLS: Halliwells registered Lexi with the Land Registry on 22nd of June 2004, but they didn’t change Pearl’s name to Lexi until 6th of November 2004, after HCW’s judgment. Halliwells subsequently changed one of their other Hallico companies to Pearl with criminal intent. These are outright chargeable criminal offences. PROVABLE OUTRIGHT PERJURY BY MR. PAUL MARCO OF HALLIWELLS: In Leeds High Court on 11th of February 2009, Mr. Paul Marco of Halliwells perjured in court, backed by six witness statements stating that their firm had no conflict of interest when they accepted instructions from Mr. Guy against Mr. Luqman for the recovery of his land. Judge Langan QC gave no weight to the fact that Mr. Marco's statements were manisetly false nor gave any weight to the possibility that Halliwells were incontrovertibly involved in the fraud or even considered that at the very least they were witnesses to the whole intricate, organised fraud. HALLIWELLS, PANNONE AND SHULMANS ALL ARGUED THAT GUY’S CLAIMS HAD NO MERIT, ACCEPTED BY ALL JUDGES, YET ALL THESE THREE SOLICITORS ACCEPTED INSTRUCTIONS TO PURSUE THE CLAIMS IN 2005-6, WHILST CHARGING EXTORTIONATE BANKRUPTING FEES. Halliwells charged £60,000 for 6 months unproductive, obstructive work. Pannone charged over £150,000 in fees and received a positive opinion in April 2005 from Jonathan Small QC and a positive advice from James Guthrie QC in December 2005, which they criminally hid for 4 years without any sort of punishment. HALLIWELLS AND ITS ENTIRE CRIMINAL TEAM HAVE USED THEIR WEALTH, THEIR PROFESSIONAL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING THEIR COURT KNOWLEDGE IN DETERMINING THIS CASE SO FAR: In the process many ‘professionals’ and organisations have committed major crimes against the State and Mr. Guy and yet alarmingly the whole fraud evidence has been systematically ignored by all authorities and not a single person has been charged or jailed in the biggest land and banking fraud to ever hit the shores of UK. IF NOW AFTER PRESENTING SUCH INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF, THE AUTHORITIES STILL DO NOT TAKE ACTIONS THEN THESE AUTHORITIES SHOULD ALSO BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED AS NO ONE, NO ORGANISATION AND NO AUTHORITY IS ABOVE THE LAW INCLUDING ALL THE ‘PROTECTORS’ OF THE LAW.

81




Land Registry’s Route of Title Criminality Summarised THIS IS A SIMPLE CASE OF SOPHISTICATED, TACTICAL, SYNTHESISATION OF FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS, BEING ASSIMILATED AND PASSED OFF AS FACTUAL PROOFS BY THE LAND REGISTRY: Through our methodical, meticulous, objective, deciphered conclusions, we incontrovertibly prove cohesive criminality and fraud within the Land Registry. Chronological fabrications, falsified attestations, misrepresentations of documentations, clearly are postulations, which clinically prove that instead of helping to prevent the fraud at & by the Land Registry’s personnel, Land Registry’s top management team are actively involved by criminally aiding & abetting the criminal perpetrators against the lawful provisions granted to them by their profession, the 2002 Land Law, the Parliament and the law. PROVISIONS OF THE LAW ARE BEING CRIMINALLY PERVERTED, TO PLUNGE, AND PERISH, THE LEGAL ASSETS OF THE CITIZENS OF UK: On 15th of May 2010, Practice & Law, on page 105 wrote, “An identity crisis at the Registry: Registration fraud has increased since 2OO3, when land certificates were abolished. Paul Clark considers what this means for conveyancers: In a five-year period, the Registry has seen a tenfold increase (?) in the number of claims on its indemnity fund as a result of fraud, It can be no coincidence that the increase arose after 2003, when land certificates were abolished...” This case is a prime example of exemplary, exacting evidences being excluded, evaded & effaced to ensure even further increases.

➢ TR1 legally declared fraudulent in A3/2008/0120, on 9th of April 2008, LJ Lloyd & LJ Carnwath legally declared the TR1 form fraudulent & void as stated on point 8, “ ..I am prepared to proceed on the footing...it would be a void document. It would be a piece of paper of no value or dispositive effect.” LJ Lloyd stated at point 10, “...a reasonable arguable basis for saying that he (Guy) would be entitled, if allegations are made out, to have the Register rectified...” LJ Lloyd stated at paragraph 19, "I can see that he could well arguably show that the registration of the original transfer was a mistake, especially if the transfer was the product of a forgery, because the registration of something that was not properly executed on the part of the registered proprietor must be a mistake. TR1 numbers changed in pen (not engrossed) & no Land Registry’s stamps. Land Registry has refused to re-register Mr. Guy as the Registered Owner. (Remove).

➢ AP1 legally declared fraudulent in CH/2007/APP/521 on 6th of Dec 2007 by LJ Henderson as stated in paragraph 13, “...incorrect statements entered upon the Form API to the effect that it was Mr. Guy who was applying to change the register and that his solicitors were Mace & Jones if that is correct, that was of course not true because he did not have a solicitor...However the transaction was completed upon the basis of these documents, but none of the alleged completion monies... no completion statement...” In paragraph 23, “... …” In Mace and Jones conveyance file there was no power of attorney, no money laundering checks, no proof of payment, no completion statement, no valid environment report; in reality nothing and yet accepted by Registry. API Form has a number change at the top in ink (not engrossed), so why is the AP1 Form on the Land Register? (Remove).

➢ SDLT (£15m) not on Treasury’s system and no tax demanded from Mr. Guy. SDLT reference number

302196542MP, page 4, p39, agents name acting on behalf of Mr. Guy, Betesh Partnership. On 4th of May 2005, Mace & Jones in their objection to the Restriction stated Weightman Vizards acted for Mr. Guy. (Remove).

➢ DS1 illegally discharged without Mr. Guy’s authority, consent or knowledge (Remove). ALL TRANSFER FORMS SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER & MR. GUY RE-RESTORED AS THE REGISTERED OWNER OF HIS LANDS, yet no civil court judge dare issue the required lawful Order as per his/her legal duty due to the criminal perpetrators’ powers to end the judges career and create financial ruin. and the Land Registry will not reverse their original criminal acts without a court order. Attorney General and/or Secretary of State and/or Justice Minister must legally intervene or they are aiding & abetting the mercurial muggings of the criminal banks, making all of them accomplices & more importantly making all of them ‘unfit for purpose’. NO CHARGES DOCUMENTS AND YET ON THE REGISTER: How come there were no charges documents dated 30th of July 2004 and 23rd of March 2005 in the Land Registry’s file on 11th March 2014 as confirmed by them?

➢ Barclays had no legal ‘Charges’ whatsoever when they initiated their premeditated 30th July 2007 criminal claim. ➢ Live writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411, 7472 of 2006, 6243 of 2007 was at part 20, thus Land Registry’s Rule 55 &

Adjudicator’s Rule 8 – (1, 2, 3) clearly prohibited 16th January 2008 (HC07CO2121) case to proceed (5 yrs jail). ➢ Linklaters perjured Barclays had ‘Registered Charges’ on 23rd March 2005, due to Land Registry criminally showing

it registered on this day, yet DLA/KPMG/Barclays applied for Priority extension on 19th July 2005. How? ➢ Criminal UN4 application used to get an Order to remove the adjudicated & satisfied UN1 (5HG0776 – 11.4.05). ➢ Barclays criminally granted ‘power of sale’ & removal of Mr. Guy’s UN1, ‘allowing unfreezing’ of the Register.

82




Land Registry’s 4th of March 2008 ‘Charges’ Criminality Summarised

LAND REGISTRY’S ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL MANIPULATION OF THE LAND REGISTER WITH CRIMINAL INTENT ON 4TH OF MARCH 2008: The Land Registry should be a bastion of best practice and help unwitting victims, beleaguered by bullish banks instead of robbing them blind to help the bullish banks. Restrictions dated 13th of April 2005 were criminally ‘Cancelled’ by the Land Registry on 4th of March 2008, based on the illegal & criminal 16th of January 2008 Order (HC07CO2121) to remove the adjudicated & satisfied UN1 (5HG0776) on 11th of April 2005. Even if the Order HC07CO2121 was legal & even if the Land Registry’s cancellation of Mr. Guy’s 13th April 2005 Restrictions was legal, it only allowed UN1 to be removed, leaving all as was and immediately return the 13th of April 2005 Restrictions date on the Land Register. Restrictions dates were not returned until August 2008, in order for Barclays, its’ criminal agents & the Land Registry’s premeditated, organised, criminal acts to be completed:

➢ Criminally allow 16th May 2006 attempted ‘finalisation’ to ‘cure’ the ‘registration’ of 22nd June 2004 ‘Charges’. ➢ Criminally allow 31st Oct 2005 attempted ‘finalisation’ to ‘cure’ the ‘registration’ of 8th/23rd March 2005 ‘Charges’. ➢ Criminally allow registration of KPMG’s 11th of October 2006 restriction, which was initiated on 11th of October

2006 at 13:56 pm, as recorded on the Land Registry atomic clock. Land Registry allowed a Restriction to be registered, as recorded by the Land Registry atomic clock, at 14:11 pm the same day which is outright illegal.

➢ Criminally used to win the 9th of April 2008, Barclays v Guy’s A3/2008/0120) Appeal. ➢ The bifurcation of Barclays’ hegemony at the Land Registry must be forced apart to retain the impartiality.

VERDANT VERACITY OF VERIFIED POIGNANT PROOFS POINTS OUR CASE TO BE CONCRETE AND UNCHALLENGEABLE AT LAW. Restrictions of 4th of March 2008 could not legally stop the attempted ‘finalisation’ of 31st of October 2005 ‘Charges’ and 16th of May 2006 as the 13th of April 2005 Restrictions could. The Land Registry knew they were committing outright criminal act in aiding & abetting Barclays in this very serious criminal act, yet amazingly all the ‘Protectors’ seem to be lacking critical, contextualised comprehension of extremely simple straight forward facts making all of them ‘unfit for purpose’.

➢ Criminally the Adjudicator’s closed their files without discussion or acceptance from Mr. Guy, blowing live writ 6LS51776 to oblivion without any judgment at all. Adjudicator had already instructed court proceedings, namely 6LS51776, which was at part 20, so he had no authority to close and the new Restriction could not be registered on 6th August 2008 due to Land Registry (Rule 55) & Adjudicators’ Rule (8 1,2,3). Impossible at law yet no ‘Protector’ even wants to do their legal compulsory duty to protect laws set out by Parliament. Why?

➢ Government institution entrusted to safeguard the interests of property owners has been corrupted to criminally and

systematically plunder the assets of the people. Technocratic technicalities are criminally deployed by the Land Registry to destroy & deny any sort of justice to Mr. Guy, as clinically shown by the Land Registry criminally agreeing with the perpetrators to remove Mr. Guy’s Restrictions, without 6LS51776 adjudicated upon, and this criminal removal will be accepted on a TR2 Form. Restrictions can only be removed with an RX3 Application, not TR2. Land Registry cannot & will not be allowed to ignore plethora of precisive, detailed, absolute, substantilised, amassed evidences to be willingly substituted for flimsy & infirm charges. Professional malfeasance to plunder peoples’ property by the Land Registry must be halted in its track.

➢ The ‘professionals’ have used Land Registry & Judiciary as a weapon against Mr. Guy to complete & hide their crimes. Deviants shall & will be decimated under a deluge of dirty laundry and deeds.

POTENTIAL CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE LAND REGISTRY AND ITS CONTROLLING MINDS: As a government institution entrusted to safeguard the interests of property owners, we hope the Land Registry will immediately redress the significant injustices inflicted on Mr. Guy, and take the appropriate steps to rectify the proprietor’s name and remove the fraudulent ‘Charges’ from the Land Register as conclusively proven to be outright criminal. Lawful lambasting will not lessen until laudable acts & accurate amends are achieved at the Land Registry. ISSUES WITH THE ADJUDICATORS' OFFICE ALSO: Despite Mr. Guy providing the Adjudicator with evidence which goes towards proving that the transfer of land was fraudulent, the Adjudicator did not respond to our queries or deal with the questions or deal with the evidence at all except to acknowledge receipt of our letters. The adjudicator was happy dealing with two other similar case namely Ajebade V Bank of Scotland and Odoqwu v Vastguide, both of which were adjudicated upon, both involving fraudulent transfers yet the Adjudicator did not consider Mr. Guy's case. Why?

83




Barclays Are Responsible For Treason, Unfit To Hold Any Banking License, Anywhere In The World

NO RESPECTABLE OR NON CRIMINAL BANK WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED LUQMAN: Luqman was a known fraudster who had convictions for fraud in 1993 and 1998 which were well covered in the local press; and he achieved further notoriety with the bankruptcy of Modern Living Limited in 2000 on the back of fraud, for which LJ Patten disqualified both Luqman brothers from being directors for 15 years in 2006 in DTI v Luqmans‘ (MA390410).

1. Barclays and its agents are fully complicit in potentially compromising the United Kingdom’s ‘National Security’ by allowing Luqman to launder in excess of £50m (possibly £125m or more) to Pakistan. Pakistan is well known as a country with many terrorist organisations and links to terrorists in other countries. Barclays did this by deliberately and criminally with intent leaving Shaid Luqman "unfettered and unsupervised", after being explicitly informed half way through the fraud of Lexi/Luqman’s fraudulent behaviour in Pearl v HCW’s (4MA70055), where the Judge invited the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to attend the proceedings due to the seriousness of the crimes and for sacking Mr. Marcus Palmer when he wanted to expose the fraud in 2004 & replacing him with Mr. Greesham.

2. Barclays and its agents were also fully complicit in corrupting the UK’s land laws, where none of the 21 million property owners are safe from the corrupt rulings with several proven perjuries in the Barclays v Guy’ (HC07CO2121) and alarmingly this has gone unpunished so far.

3. Barclays and its officials were and still are fully complicit in their criminal use of senior officials, and accounting and

legal advisers including KPMG, DLA Piper, Linklaters and Pannone LLP among many others; including High Court judges to collectively orchestrate this highly complex, organised, money laundering, terrorist financing, industrial scale fraud and yet to date alarmingly this has gone unpunished by all the UK’s authorities.

4. Barclays’ with their agents won all the Ten Acres Lane land’s cases against Mr. Trevor Guy based on perjuries

and repeated misrepresentations that they had ‘Charges’ Registered on 23rd of March 2005. However the Gibraltar Documents prove that Barclays confirmed in writing that they did not have any ‘Charges’ registered on 19th of July 2005 with their Priority Extension Application heard on 12th of October 2005 (Comp. No 70 of 2005 Gibraltar). Barclays attempted finalization of their ‘Charges’ on 31st of October 2005, but Mr. Guy’s 13th of April 2005 prevented any ’Charges’ whatsoever from being registered after 13th of April 2005; Restriction terms, “No disposition of the register stated by the proprietor of the registered estate or by the proprietor of any registered charge is to be registered without a written consent signed by Trevor Guy...”, and yet with explicit fraud knowledge and fraud notice given to Barclays Main Board, KPMG’s Main Board, DLA’s Main Board, Linklaters’ Main Board & Eddisons’ main board (marketing manager Mr. John Padgett) are still criminally trying to market the land!!!!! Is this not Reset?

BARCLAYS AND ITS ENTIRE CRIMINAL TEAM HAVE USED THEIR WEALTH, THEIR POLITICAL CONNECTIONS, THEIR PROFESSIONAL CONNECTIONS, THEIR HIGH COURTS JUDGES’ INFLUENCES INCLUDING THEIR COURT LOOPHOLES KNOWLEDGE IN DETERMINING THIS CASE SO FAR and in the process many ‘professionals’ and organisations have committed major crimes against the UK State and Mr. Guy. Their actions may have affected our ‘national security’ whist contaminating our land laws, and alarmingly the whole fraud evidence has been systematically ignored and buried by all the UK authorities and not a single person has been charged and jailed in the biggest land and banking fraud to ever hit the shores of United Kingdom.. ALL THE STATEMENTS OF TRUTH, EVIDENCE AND JUDGEMENTS BASED ON PERJURIES WERE FRAUDULENT: Any competent person who would have looked at the TR1 Form, the route of title, the contract, the AP1 form, the removal of loans without consent, fraudulent survey would have accepted that the transfer was clearly fraudulent. Both the deliverance of fraudulent documents and using their position to hide a crime are a clear abuse of the Civil Court process in perverting the true course of justice. Judgements that contained no law or none that could be matched to any British law are no judgements at all. The findings of the law in this case have been extremely hostile. The judges were 'ultra vires' as they clearly knew that fraud had been committed. Fraud cannot be judged on a summary judgment or a statutory demand. All Barclays v Guy’s judgements should be critically analysed by the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Justice Minister, Judicial Review Team, Treasury Select Committee & Serious Fraud Office legal team. BARCLAYS V GUY’S LORD JUSTICES INVOLVED IN SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES: LJ Lloyd is being investigated for having money in his accounts, not accounted for; LJ Mowschenson has been seen indulging in suspicious late night chats in the ‘Plumber’s case’ and was forced to resign. Barclays & Its criminal agents should be charged under the 2006 Fraud Act, chapter 35, 1-10 for using their position to hide a crime and obtaining money by fraud & deception.

84




These Criminal Character Traits Never Change From Country To Country THESE CRIMINAL CHARACTER TRAITS NEVER CHANGE FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY HENCE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE UK IS EXACTLY THE SAME IN EUROPE, USA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD: If Barclays and their Sergeant In Arms KMPG, DLA Piper and Linklaters can corrupt so many public UK’s ministers & authorities to criminally turn blind eyes to the open proven public criminal acts within the Land Registry, the Judiciary, the Treasury, the National Audit Office and the Home Office within the UK, with the full blessing of all the ‘Protectors’ of the law within UK, than surely you must understand that these same character traits are the same in Europe, USA and in each & every country in the world where these criminals operate. Does that not worry you for yours & your children’s well beings? DID BLUE ARROW TRIAL MAKE BANK FRAUD UNTRIABLE WITHIN UK? Can the reason for too few prosecutions be traced back to one trial in 1992? Blue Arrow case went down as Britain's most expensive criminal trial, costing an estimated £40m. Upwardly mobile employment company, Blue Arrow Ltd, made a bid to take over recruitment agency Manpower. Blue Arrow launched a record-breaking £837m rights issue. Few of the new shares were wanted so remaining 19% stake in Blue Arrow was hid in subsidiary companies in order to allow the takeover of Manpower. Spreading their stake throughout the subsidiaries meant the banks avoided Section 209 of the Companies Act which requires all holdings over 5% to be disclosed to the Stock Exchange. The plan was to dribble the excess stock back on to the market over a period of months and had it not been for the stock market crash of October 19, 1987, the plan may have worked. A YEAR-LONG TRIAL RESULTED IN CONVICTION OF FOUR BANKERS. CONVICTIONS WERE OVERTURNED A FEW MONTHS LATER when the Appeal Court ruled that due to the length of the trial and the complexity of the subject matter, the jury could not have reached a fair verdict. It was labelled a "costly disaster" that must never be repeated, by Appeal Court judge Lord Justice Mann. "This idea that ordinary juries can't understand, is the first mistake that all these clever people make. But actually the truth is [they] understand only too well " says Mr Bosworth Davies. "That's why juries are so good are dealing with dishonesty cases, because they get it." A view both Lord Phillips and Mr Green agree with. SOME BELIEVE THIS RULING LED TO THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE DECIDING TO NEVER AGAIN PURSUE A SIMILAR PROSECUTION OF A BIG CITY INSTITUTION OR ITS SENIOR EXECUTIVES - that it views some cases as being so complex that they are simply "untriable". "The truth of the matter is [the SFO] are frightened to take these cases on," says Rowan Bosworth-Davies, a financial crime consultant and former Scotland Yard detective. "If Blue Arrow had any impact it was that the SFO knew they were never going to get close to the City establishment ever again." Lord Phillips says Blue Arrow affair has remained in the "institutional memory of the prosecutorial authorities and regulators". LORD PHILLIPS BELIEVES IS "DEEPLY DAMAGING" THE COUNTRY: "It's a scandal that not one director from the board of a mainstream bank has gone to jail." "There is an utter failure of our prosecutorial authorities to implement the laws that lie on the statute book," says Lord Phillips, a problem he attributes to the SFO being "criminally understaffed". "The SFO and HM Revenues and Customs are good people but can't get near the big boys. It's David without his sling against Goliath." Mr Green admits that "the other side is always very well lawyered up and very well supplied". HOW CAN A POLICE COMMISSIONER EVEN THINK OF BLOCKING VERY SERIOUS FRAUD INFORMATION UNLESS HE IS WORKING FOR THE CRIMINALS: Younger Ian [email protected] wrote on 26 Jan at 2:38 PM, “Dear Sirs, Our Commissioner, Mr Dyson, has been copied in to a number of emails which appear to be generally broadcast to a wide variety of people and organisations. Under the circumstances we do not feel it is appropriate to be copying the Commissioner and ask that you cease. I am afraid that if you continue to do so it may be necessary to put a block further emails.” We have not sent any love letters or marriage proposal, but hard-core fraud information. Mr. Dyson is ‘unfit for purpose’. DI Jonathan Hodgeon, Financial Investigation Unit, Northallerton. N Yorkshire refused to see ‘Tsunami of very serious crimes in 10 minutes”, which Mr. Guy had prepared for him to see, stating the case is closed as they do not have resource to carry out the full investigation necessary. So the secret is to do crimes in the billions but make sure it is too big for the police.

SFO OFFER ‘JUSTICE FOR SALE’ IN THE OUTRIGHT CRIMINALITY AS SEEN IN BARCLAYS DEALINGS IN QATAR: The SFO is probing an allegation that Barclays loaned £322m to Qatar investors to buy shares in the bank which enabled the bank to avoid a UK government bailout in 2008. The bank is currently contesting a £50m fine after the FCA deemed its failure to disclose the loans constituted a breach of regulations. The investigation continues however we are led to believe that SFO are contemplating ‘Justice For Sale’ by offering Barclays fines for their very serious crimes.

DO MASSIVE BANK FINES DO ANY GOOD ON THEIR OWN? In the Forex scandal, Barclays was fined £1.5bn, but on the back of that news, Barclays share price rose more than 3%, adding £1.48bn, almost as much as it was forced to pay. Past obviously have not been sufficient or painful enough, as the banks continue criminal acts without fear.

85




Criminal Charges Will Always Become ‘Just Another Day At The Office’ For The Banks HOW MUCH ARE BARCLAYS REALLY LAUNDERING; WHO TO & WHY? If Barclays can openly launder well over +£53m (perhaps as much as £125m?) proven from reliable court documents to Pakistan, a country known to have terrorist links, from a small time petty cook in one single operation (within which we have exposed a second £100m fraud), then how much are they really laundering; who to; for what purpose; supporting what and what is their objectives? HOW LONG CAN WE TOLERATE THE FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF SUCH DAMAGING BEHAVIOUR BY THESE INSTITUTIONS? Campaigners for a tax on financial transactions at the Robin Hood Tax campaign, said: “These colossal fines are a shocking reminder that for too long our banks have had a rotten core. In what other sector would we tolerate the frequency and severity of such damaging behaviour?” Andrew McCabe, FBI assistant director, said: “These resolutions make clear that the US government will not tolerate criminal behaviour in any sector of the financial markets.” What does this really mean? The Attorney General warned that further wrongdoing would be taken extremely seriously: "The Department of Justice will not hesitate to file criminal charges for financial institutions that reoffend. Banks that cannot or will not clean up their act need to understand - it will be enforced." How? With ‘Justice for Sale’? GETTING BANKS THAT HAVE ADMITTED CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS IS NOW A TASK FOR ALL THE WORLD REGULATORS: On the basis of fraud knowledge real consideration should be given to raising fraud charges against the whole of Barclays’ Board as eloquently stated on his departure by Mr Marcus Agius, chairman of Barclays (2006-2011) "Last week's events – evidencing as they do unacceptable standards of behaviour within the bank – have dealt a devastating blow to Barclay’s reputation. As Chairman, I am the ultimate guardian of the bank's reputation. Accordingly, the buck stops with me and I must acknowledge responsibility by standing aside.” FEAR OF PENALTY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS HAS BEEN TRIVIALISED: Cornelius Hurley, director of the Boston University Centre for Finance, Law & Policy, “It is rare for a company to be found guilty of criminal behaviour. We have trivialised the criminal penalties, so I don't know what's left." He further stated, "It used to be that the fear of a criminal penalty was you might lose your banking licence. That it would be a death knell. That's been removed - nobody has lost their licence," he adds. "Somehow there has to be a fear factor." The fear factor is taking away the banking licences and jailing their main board. CRIMINAL CASES MUST BE SEVERELY PUNISHED IF THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE: Due to this being an organised criminal case, the investigation costs and time will be negligible in relation to the extraordinary fines that the Serious Fraud Office can impose to make this painful for Barclays, Lloyds, TSB, HBOS, KPMG, DLA, Linklaters, Pannone among many others, so that they dare not reoffend with impunity. All other UK authorities should also impose fines that will genuinely cause all their shareholders to take heed. In additions to damaging fines we should make a serious example by handing out long jail sentences to senior directors and CEO’s of Barclays & its criminal team to ensure the people at the top of these organisations know that if they ignore plethora of fraud involvement and/or allow their employees to knowingly break the law, they will personally face criminal charges and retrospective jail sentences. OUTSIDE THE WORLD OF FINANCE, THE USUAL REMEDY IS TO BREAK-UP THE COMPANY AS IT IS GOOD FOR ALL CONCERNED: Apart from larger and larger fines for criminal penalties, there are other tricks up the sleeves of the regulators. Prof Simon Johnson, of the MIT Sloan School of Management and previously chief economist at the IMF, said “The next step regulators could take is an anti-competition probe. The key thing here is market power. The people fixing foreign exchange called themselves 'the cartel'. Cartels only operate when there is a relatively small number of players, so I think that there are major anti-trust issues here. "The banks claim there were only a few rogue individuals but the rogue individuals only had the ability to do it because there is implicit market power in the concentration of the foreign exchange market. Outside of finance the usual remedy is breaking a company up. Regulators may be worried about the impact of breaking up banks, but there is historical precedent, he adds. With the breakup of Standard Oil in the early 20th century; there were plenty of complaints about pricing power, so it was broken up and the market became a lot more competitive. Standard's 33 constituent companies went on to be very profitable and made John D Rockefeller the richest man in the world. It was good for the country and good for the shareholders and that's how I would see what should happen with the big banks. Exxon Mobil is one of the most famous descendants of Standard Oil Holding”. Only the united power of UK, Europe and USA can perhaps take the criminal banks on and win (breakdown of the banks). EVEN THE MEDIA POWERHOUSES DARE NOT REPORT PROVEN CRIMINALITY DUE TO BARCLAYS IMMENSE POWER: Despite reporting our initial draft findings showing proven criminality by Barclays to the main media powerhouses here in the UK and few elsewhere, not one single media powerhouse dare report the criminal acts by Barclays, even though they should report due to their overriding public duty. UK public should immediately stop paying BBC’s licence fees as BBC does not work for the public, but works for the criminal banks and their puppets.

86




Barclays’ Gallery That Must Be Jailed For ‘Reset’

BARCLAYS, LLOYDS, TSB AND HBOS ALONG WITH KPMG, DLA, LINKLATERS & PANNONE WERE THE REAL MASTERMINDS BEHIND THIS FRAUD, NOT THE LUQMAN BROTHERS: After studying the evidence presented, it will become clear to anyone reading that Luqmans could not have done the crime without the full assistance of Barclays, KPMG, DLA, Linklaters & Pannones, who aided and abetted the entire fraud over the 5 years, passing the baton as it progressed to larger and larger amounts. Alex Megaw and James Farn previously of Pannone were behind this fraud at the inception as the initial sorcerers and were indisputably and inextricably involved up to their eyeballs. The fraud was continued with Barclays fully at the helm from January 2004, at the very latest by March 2004, when they took control of the fraud and gave the responsibility to one of their ‘own’ directors namely Clive Gresham of Barclays, as well as Brian Green and Richard Fleming of KPMG as the new sorcerers from December 2004. It will become evidently clear that after January 2004, Barclays aided and abetted Luqman with every tool at their disposal. In the process Barclays used KPMG, DLA, Linklaters, PWC, KLSA, PKF and various judges including LJ Mowschenson, LJ Lloyd, LJ Carnwart, and ‘Sir’ W. Blackburne to cover their tracks as fully exposed within all the incontrovertible evidence already presented to all.

BARCLAYS EMPLOYEES TO BE CHARGED AND JAILED AMONG OTHERS

John McFarlane

Chairman Sir Michael Rake Vice Chairman

James Staley Chief Executive

Ashok Vaswani Chief Executive

Tushar Morzaria Finance Director

Paul Crompton Chief Operating Officer

The White Knights Consortium provided full details of the fraud to the above ‘controlling minds’ at Barclays as shown in letter 1, letter 2, letter 3 and despite us providing them with incontrovertible proof in this fraud. 1) they have not done any SAR Report as far as we can ascertain, 2) neither started any internal investigations as far as we can ascertain, 3) on the contrary they have criminally put Ten Acres Lane land into the market to be sold through Edison (Mr. John Padgett) in an attempt to criminally close this investigations. The sale attempt not only criminalises them, but includes KPMG, DLA, Linklaters and the Land Registry. This is serious criminal offence by many that has to be punished. If Mr. Guy had committed the same offence, he most certainly would be jailed for a long time so why not these six men to start with? If the authorities don’t go after them, then we will have concrete proof there is a two tier law system, one for the normal ‘Joe public’ and another law for these ‘powerful men’, as pre-Magna Carta 1297.

Barclays Potential Criminal Soldiers

Bob Diamond Capital CEO

Barclays CEO Flees UK

Roger Jenkins Capital Level 28

Flees UK

Peter Richardson - Overall Manager Lexi

Flees UK

Clive Gresham Day To Day Manager

Started Own Co. Replaced Palmer

Marcus PalmerDay to Day Manager, Sacked - Expose Fraud

Moved TO BOS

James Sackett

BARCLAYS CAPITAL CEO ALSO LEFT UNITED KINGDOM: On the basis of fraud knowledge criminal charges not only have to be brought against Marcus Palmer (Lexi’s day to day manager, sacked when he wanted to expose the fraud), Clive Gresham (Replaced Palmer and criminally let Lexi do as it pleased), Peter Richardson overall manager of Lexi), Roger Allen Jenkins (Capital Level 28 CEO who arranged Lexi’s facility) but also against Robert ‘Bob’ Diamond who moved to Barclays in 1996. He rose to become Chief Executive of Barclays Capital and was appointed president of Barclays in 2005. In 2010, he become its’ deputy group Chief Executive and in January 2001, he succeeded John Varley as Chief Executive of Barclays. Bob Diamond was the CEO of Barclays Capital during Lexi’s era but left Barclays and United Kingdom after the “Libor scandal”.

BARCLAYS’ BOARD FULLY NOTIFIED OF THE FRAUDULENT LAND THEFT YET CRIMINALLY IGNORE: Barclays Board, Lloyd’s Board, HBOS Board, KPMG’s Board, DLA’s Board and Linklaters’ Board must be legally charged for ‘reset’ as they have been fully notified of the theft over the years, yet they are still attempting to sale Mr. Guy’s land.

87




Potential Involved Parties To Be Questioned And Further Investigated

➢ Barclays: Matthew W Barrett; Marcus Agius; Sir David Walker; John McFarlane; John Silvester Varley; Sir Nigel Rudd DL; Roger Davis; David Lawton Roberts; Naguib Kheraj; Paul Idzik; Frits Seegers; Gary Hoffman; Sir Richard Broadbent; Bob Diamond; Andrew Jenkins; Chris Lucas; Thomas L Kalaris; Sir Michael Rake; Tushar Morzaria; Thomas King; Ashok Vaswani; Jonathan Moulds; Sunil Chirayath; Marcus Palmer; Clive Gresham; James Staley; Paul Crompton.

➢ Barclays Capital: James Sackett, Peter Richardson, Roger Jenkins and Bob Diamond. Auditors

➢ KPMG: Brian Green, Richard Fleming and Glyn Braddley ➢ HCW: Dan Bancroft. ➢ PWC: ➢ KLSA: ➢ PKF: Dan Bancroft.

Lawyers

➢ DLA Piper LLP: Paul Fleming, Crispen Jones. ➢ Pannone LLP: Alex Megaw, James Farn, Joy Kingsley, Anushka Stone, Simon McCrum, Simon

Pedley, Robert Glithero, Soren Tatton and Ingham ➢ Linklaters: Katie Bradford. Simon Hartley ➢ Mace & Jones LLP: Varun Maharaj, Philip Farley (Bermans) ➢ George Davis: Paul Bibby. ➢ Weightman Vizards: Mike Hewitt (Wacks Caller, Betish Partnership). ➢ Betish Partnership: Nick Heywood. ➢ Halliwells LLP: Gareth Atkinson, Paul Marco, Keith Hobson. ➢ Beachcroft LLP: Nabeel Choudry, Anthony Hill. ➢ Savills LLP: Audrey Adams. ➢ Howard & Howard LLP: Barry Howard. ➢ Hailsham Chambers LLP: Spike Charlwood. ➢ Carpenters: John Carpenter. ➢ Heatons: Mark Beach. ➢ Lexi’s Independent Directors: Richard Jewson, Norman Hill and Malcolm Davis. ➢ Judges: Terrance Mowschenson, Lord Timothy Lloyd, Lord Carnwath, and Sir William Blackburne. ➢ Gregory, Victoria, legally qualified ex personal assistant to Trevor Guy. ➢ Bermans, Red Eight Private Finance Limited to collaborate our statements.

Banks

➢ Lloyds TSB, HBOS Authorities To Be Interviewed

➢ Representatives of the Land Registry, ➢ Representatives of the Judiciary, ➢ Representatives of the National Audit Office, ➢ Representatives of the Treasury, ➢ Representatives of the North Yorkshire Police, Manchester Police, CPS and SFO.

88




‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Other Substantiating Files To Fully Understand The Organised Fraud

1. Home - Complete Fraud Summarised In Few Highly Summarised Pages (File 1). 2. ‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Introduction To Treason (Trevor Guy v Regina) (File 2A).

‘Fraus Omnia Corrumpit’ On Abrogation of Duties - Trevor Guy v Regina (File 2B).

3. Route of Title Criminal In Its Entirety (File 3). 4. Barclays’ Knowledge Before They Took Their Criminal ‘Charge’ (File 4). 5. Barclays Do Not Have A Legal Enforceable ‘Charge’ (File 5). 6. Criminal Chargeable Acts By & At The Land Registry (File 6).

7. 4th Version Of The Loan Agreement Proves Organised Criminality Among Many (File 7).

8. Illegally Stayed Live Writ 6LS51776 (6LS30411) Must Be Transferred To The Criminal Court (File 8).

9. Incontrovertible Proof of Premeditated Organised Criminality Among Many (File 9).

10. Barclays v Guy’s Illegal & Criminal Judgments (File 10).

Illegal & Criminal Mowschenson’s Order 24 Judgment (HCO7CO2121-EWCA Civil 452) Exposed (10B). Illegal & Criminal Lloyds/Carnwath’s Judgment (HCO7CO2121 - A3/2008/0120) Exposed (File 10C). Illegal & Criminal Masters of The Rolls’ Judgment (A3/2008/0120(B)- [2010] EWCA Civ 1396) File (10D).

11. Illegally Orchestrated Criminal Bankruptcy Judgments That Legally Must Be Reversed (File 11). 12. Guy’s v Lawyers Illegal & Criminal Judgment (HC09C00788) (File 12).

13. UK’s Ministers & Authorities Complicities (File 13).

14. Was Luqman The Real Mastermind (File 14)?

15. Barclays’ Complicity (File 15). 16. KPMG’s Complicity (File 16). 17. DLA’s Complicity (File 17).

18. Linklaters’ Complicity (File 18).

19. Pannone’s Complicity (File 19). 20. George Davis’ Complicity (File 20). 21. Mace & Jones’ Complicity (File 21). 22. Weightman Vizards’ Complicity (File 22). 23. Halliwells’ Complicity (File 23).

24. Lloyds TSB’s Complicity (File 24). 25. HBOS’ Complicity (File 25). 26. PWC’s Complicity (File 26). 27. KLSA’s Complicity (File 27). 28. Other Parties’ Complicity (File 28).

29. Important Information (File 29).

30. Other Fraud Cases (File 30). 31. Misc File (File 31).

The White Knights Consortium Takes Full Responsibility For All The Above Files Explicitly Exposing Fraud

89




White Knights Consortium Involvement In your letter dated 5th of January 2017, the Trustee, Mr. K. Lucas stated, “The trustee in bankruptcy (of the relevant bankruptcy) is the only person who can pursue any action or sell any of those assets. Most importantly it is imperative you note this means it is not you. Therefore all these people who are working on your behalf (e.g. White Knights Consortium, Gateleys, etc, etc) are doing so with no authority whatsoever because you are not and cannot be the client. I am amazed none of them have realised this.” Mr. Guy is not our ‘client’, & we are free to expose all frauds.

➢ The White Knights’ Consortium is a group of discreet, very wealthy experts and consultants, discreetly spread over the globe, specialising in different fields, discreetly working to protect the Constitutions & root out high level corruption, by powerful perpetrators, always under a new name.

➢ The White Knights Consortium investigating unit carryout full and through investigations against the

perpetrators of frauds & then pass over the information to the White Knights’ legal team, ensuring that all the perpetrators, bar none, face the long arm of the law, whatever it takes, irrespective.

➢ The White Knights Consortium publishes their detailed findings on dedicated websites which are

promoted through social media such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for maximum publicity. Our activities force regulatory authorities across the globe to take prompt and effective investigations and prosecutions against all the perpetrators of the frauds.

➢ The White Knights Consortium raise public outcry with our website petitions, in order to force

governments and regulators to take the corrective actions and not be influenced by the perpetrators’ immense power. Whistle blowers sections on websites have proved extremely fruitful in the past.

➢ The White Knights Consortium’s websites ensure powerful organisations cannot apply undue influence

in the investigations, exposure and prosecutions undertaken by government bodies and the media. We utilise programs such as Panorama, Dispatches and similar programs in other countries where the perpetrators of the fraud operate.

➢ Additionally, where there is a financial element, channels including Bloomberg, CNBC, BBC World News

and the Financial Times are utilised. Our websites are free of any copyright laws and the material is free to be used in any other legal cases where the material would prove beneficial to other parties prosecuting the perpetrators of the fraud.

➢ The White Knights Consortium exposes the perpetrators to all the relevant UK and overseas authorities

to ensure our allegations are fully investigated worldwide. Due to austerity measures worldwide and the potential application of fines, interest is almost guaranteed in all cases. Where there is clear evidence of criminal behaviour, we aim to ensure directors and senior personnel face jail sentences, and the organisation faces maximum, damaging fines.

➢ The White Knights Consortium standard procedure dictates that we attack the very heart of the fraud by

providing incontrovertible, overwhelming, proof of criminal activity to the masses.

➢ The White Knights Consortium continues their loud, lawful lambasting until the corrective & complete actions are taken by the government of a fraud infested country and law & order restored.

➢ The White Knights Consortium does whatever it takes to get the job done as soon as possible.

➢ The White Knights Consortium has & will always remain a discreet, secret, untraceable organisation due

to the immense power we challenge. We are friends of the law & friends of the court. White Knights Consortium always welcome new Knights into the fold. Any & all incriminating information appreciated.

90

91

92