Notice to the High Court:
Delivered by hand – at the Manchester Justice Centre:
14th January 2013. CASE 2MA90015
Notice is given to ‘the court’ of the following: In the matter of MICHAEL CLARKE (legal fiction).





Challenge of jurisdiction:
Challenge of the legitimacy of the judge:
The Queen is no longer sovereign:
All prior orders are void:
There is no case to answer:
This notice is delivered in writing prior to the commencement of any hearing in recognition of the fact that in the
past when reasonable approach has been made to ‘the court’ to deal with the issues presented below… the
court has adopted a position of abandonment – and has resorted to secret hearings to declare judgment in an
effort to retain its authority… we can no longer tolerate avoidance of the facts and we thus challenge the court
to address these issue or be condemned by its own acquiescence through silence.
No court can make judgment in its own cause… it is anathema to justice. We claim that the High Court has no
legitimacy… because it fails to uphold the rule-of-law and has resorted instead to the rule-of-force (coercion) to
impose its claimed authority.
Legitimate authority derives from consent not coercion.
The court must address the issues raised or the authority of the court evaporates. The issues are not going to go
away and more and more people will challenge the court until addressed.
Challenging the authority of government and the legitimacy of the judiciary is a democratic right where
questions of propriety arise
Challenge to Jurisdiction:
In the matter of MICHAEL CLARKE (legal fiction):
MICHAEL CLARKE is a legal fiction - summonsed by High Court order to ‘appear’ today and is presented to the court as
ordered – in recognition of the authority of the court and its jurisdiction over the legal fiction The legal fiction appears by
way of a copy of the birth certificate… as the ‘original’ certificate is not available.
MICHALE CLARKE as referred to in the High court document is not a living sentient being… i.e. a man – this is self-evident as no man is subject to the authority of any other without his consent - we are all born equal. This is not a romantic notion
it is a statement of cold hard fact.
1
Neither the denial or bluster of the legal profession in any capacity will suppress the authority of logic – and we present to
the court the logic that ‘no man has authority over any other without their consent’ – if the court claims so to have…
show the law.
The authority of statutes are imposed legally upon ‘persons’ which are corporations. The legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE is a
corporate entity. ‘Person’ is not defined in statute law as ‘a man’ and therefore it isn’t ‘a man.’ The authority imposed upon
the legal fiction the ‘person’ transfers to the man upon consent – upon using ‘the name’ of ‘the person.’ No consent = no
authority. Imposed authority is coercion. Coercion is unlawful.
The name MICHEAL CLARKE does not attach itself to a man as a compulsion… is happens only by consent.
No authority exist that permits one man to impose his will on another man without his consent… this is unlawful. The
government can however claim authority over the legal fiction, created by government.
The court repeatedly avoids this issue… because the legal fiction is the foundation of its authority and with this revealed…
the true authority of the court i.e. ‘the consent of the people’ is exposed. The courts paranoia – that it will lose its
authority if the legal fiction is exposed is unfounded… the reverse is now the case… the legal fiction (115 million pages on
Google) is well and truly established as a fact and the continued denial by the High Court only serves to diminish its
authority… by diminishing trust in it. It must surely be the case that Judges who continue to deny the legal fiction will
attract cynicism and distrust to all judgments of the court, thus bringing it into disrepute.
No group of men can write regulations (Acts of parliament) to subject other men to their arbitrary authority – we are
governed by consent – this is not a hollow claim – it is a maxim and is the very foundation of our governance. Statutes
have only equal authority of government, they do not exceed that authority – thus statutes must also be subject to our
consent and the withdrawal of same.
We know fully how that consent has been secured through the legal fiction… High Court judges know how consent is
secured through the legal fiction and through presumptions, in the absence of the denial of consent.
Let it be made clear… consent is and has been denied consistently – all presumptions and assumptions are denied.
The jurisdiction of the court is subject to the consent of all parties to a dispute.
If the ‘High Court’ insists on asserting that it has authority beyond consent over the man (not the legal fiction) then show
the law that authorises it. If the court insists on imposing its claimed authority - in the face of the denial of consent then a
claim is raised that a tort has been committed against the man and the liability falls to the administrator of the court.
If the High Court will not give way to the demands of the people that it respect and uphold our laws - then its authority
evaporates… and its relevance diminished to nought. All that remains is tyranny.
The jurisdiction of the court is challenged on several levels… even under its own rules.
No case to answer: There is no subject matter. Late delivery by the Pannone.
Hearsay (written affidavits) inadmissible – due to ‘Notice of intention to rely on such evidence’ not given.
The court claims to control who can and cannot address the court. ‘No right of audience’ this is a patently bias in favour of
the legal profession – bias is unlawful. A judge who imposes the restriction of ‘No right of audience’ must recuse
themselves for bias. [Barristers are servants of the court – this is a conflict of interest where the ‘defendant’ is challenging
the authority of the court.]
Representation in court by individuals who are not servants of the court will be more robust in their challenges of the
court. The exposure of the legal fiction is testament to this.
2
Challenge to the legitimacy of the judge:

The authority of the High Court judge is challenged - where there is no evidence of the authority so claimed then
none exists. We have moved beyond ‘authority by assumption.’ Authority by one can only be imposed on another
with their consent… if no consent is given then the imposition of authority implies a master slave relationship…
slavery is repugnant and goes against the basic principles of a civil society – those who insist on the imposition of
their authority without consent are tyrants – and tyrants are a threat to the peaceful coexistence of all free people
– they must be vanquished.

Tyrants have been dealt with before – Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights is the legacy of that struggle and
these laws are at our disposal today to strike down any new attempts at tyranny – even when it comes dressed up
as law.

Acts of Parliament are not laws… if they were, they would be called Laws of Parliament. Acts of Parliament are
merely statutes, they are referred to as statutes … and statutes gain the authority of law when they are consented
to. We are not adverse to consenting to statutes – but those designed to impose overbearing control will be
opposed – and rightly so.

The constant imposition of unreasonable statutes is the flint to the dry grass… and the judiciary may be the first
bale to burn.

The authority of the judge derives from the sovereignty of the people on whose behalf they administer justice…
they do not impose their decisions on their own created authority. The people’s authority is represented by our
Sovereign Monarch… to whom the judiciary give sworn allegiance that they will uphold our laws.

If there is any diminishment of the standing of the Monarch then the authority of the judge fails because he/she
too would lose standing.

Where the Monarch’s authority fails… the people’s authority remains intact… because the people’s sovereignty is
supreme.

Where the Monarch’s authority fails – so does the judges – who must then seek a new authority from the
people… not from politician’s as this would destroy the fundamental principle of the separation of powers – and
judges cannot create their own arbitrary authority.

The Monarch’s authority has failed… brought about by the duplicity of parliament which has surrendered its own
authority contrary to our constitution. Her majesty did not prevent the surrender of parliament to a foreign power
by refusing the Royal Assent – despite over a million signatories in petition. Parliament may well have surrendered
its sovereignty to a foreign power… but the people’s sovereignty remains intact.

The people’s sovereignty is secure and our constitution defends it through its various elements such as Magna
Carta.

Magna Carta is the law and judges of the High Court must submit to it – or suffer the consequences of the law.

Nobody is above the law – and that includes High Court judges.

Lord Scarman said… “A government above the law is a menace to be defeated”

It is undeniably the case that a judiciary above the law is a tyranny to be defeated………. our law is unequivocal and
it is this: - “No man shall be imprisoned without a jury of his peers”

It seems that today’s judges have been ‘trained’ beyond the capacity to understand this basic and simple logic.

Those judges who step over that mark and act in defiance of our law must be held to account and striped of their
duties – and their pensions.
3

If this court does not concede to the demand of a trial by jury then that demand will go to the highest court in the
land… the people’s grand jury – to settle this matter once and for all.

If it is necessary for the people’s grand jury to be called upon… and it finds in favour of trial by jury as it surely will
because it is the unquestionable right of the people, then the full body of High Court judges will have to be
dismissed and replaced. It is not beyond the powers of the people to do this.
NO SOVEREIGNTY:
 The sovereignty of the people is not in question – but the sovereignty of Her Majesty must be seen to be in doubt
– if the claim made by John Major (Ex Premier) has any validity. Major said of the Queen “ The Queen is a citizen
of the European Union” – this claim is to imagine the death of the Queen. The Prime Minister would not make
that statement without legal advice because of the constitutional significance.

The implications are that the Queen has accepted mediatisation. i.e. she is no longer sovereign.

If the Queen is no longer sovereign – where do the courts and judges claim to have secured their authority?

The political establishment have devised a wheeze to avoid this vital question… they obfuscate with the phrase
‘shared sovereignty’ which is an oxymoron and can be discounted as nonsense.

We either have sovereignty or we do not. If we have sovereignty then the authority of the court is not in
question… only its actions. Its actions to deny trial by jury are unlawful. There may be some ‘legal’ provision to
deny a trial by jury (it is doubtful) but even if there were -‘legal’ is not ‘lawful’ and where they are in conflict then
‘the legal’ provision would not stand because it would be defeated by our common law (supreme law).

If the Queen is no longer sovereign, then the authority of the High Court falls on this reality. If the Queen is still
Sovereign then there should be no problem getting confirmation of this fact from Her Majesty… there are
channels to secure this written confirmation by Her Majesty’s Private Secretary. This is not beyond the capability
of the High Court for Her Majesty’s Sovereignty to be confirmed in writing. Silence will tell all.
Re: Constitutional Monarchy

The United Kingdom is defined as a constitutional monarchy because we have both a constitution and our Head of
State is a Monarch. Our constitution defines our form of government – the government does not define our form
of constitution – in recent times this principle has been unlawfully reversed without the consent of the people
and has been carried out by unscrupulous politicians, aided and abetted by members of the legal profession. The
courts to date have made no contribution to stopping this process of change that has diminished the people’s
sovereignty whilst enhancing authority elsewhere including with foreign institutions.

If the sovereignty of the people has been compromised and the reversal is not challenged, then we are clearly
culpable through our own apathy.

The constitution is the foundation of our freedoms and our liberties and MUST be upheld by the courts… or the
courts must be abandoned.

We now have a government that seeks to rewrite our constitution and by so doing empower itself – at our
expense.

A demand for jury trial is exercising our constitutional rights, which if denied gives evidence of collusion by the
courts with unlawful governance – we cannot be allowed to stand. This is treason.
Void Orders.
4

No order made by a court that lacks jurisdiction has any authority – it is void.

A void order cannot be breached – the order does not exist.
Does the court claim that MICHAEL CLARKE is a man? – then let the court provide the proof. The evidence of logic to the
contrary overrides any such claim.
Does the court claim authority over the man? – Then Let the court provide the proof.
Can ‘the judge’ give evidence of his authority… his oath of office? His Warrant from the Queen?
Is the Queen still Sovereign? The evidence suggest not.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
We understand that the judiciary take oath amongst themselves not to engage in any discussion in court re the legal fiction
entity and under pressure to do so they are instructed to abandon the court… suppression of the fact re the legal fiction
being paramount.
There is recurring evidence to support this claim… the judiciary will not discuss this matter – which gives rise to the
certainly of the legal fiction. There are in excess of 115 million web sites on Google which overwhelming support the
concept of the legal fiction… this is quite staggering - there is random but sparse opposition to the idea… logic dominates.
To reinforce the position… the judiciary will not engage.
If the judiciary serve another master… then they must recuse themselves.
We understand that the court order stipulated that MICHEAL CLARKE should appear before the court – and this order has
been complied with. If the court dissents – then the court should give evidence as to who the name is. A judicial
determination.
The man is prepared to present himself to a court of law… he is not adverse to justifying his actions… but he will not
respond to coercion and the threat of violence against him made BY THE COURT – coercion is unlawful – the courts
themselves are not above the law.
The man will make himself available to a common law court.
Show the law where the court claims the authority to imprison a man without a jury of his peers. We present Magna Carta
as the law – well established… that says he must have a jury trial.
The CPR may not provide for a jury trial – but nor does it provide for its exclusion. Nor does it claim the right to suppress
our constitution… it seems to leave this to individual judges… if they are bold enough to do so. Surely the CPR rules are a
trap for unwitting judges.
The matter to hand:
Contempt of Court.

Honestly held belief: Freemen have an honestly held belief that they have a right to a fair trial… which means a
jury trial – and that statute courts are subject to consent. Where there is no jury trial facilitated by the court and
no consent given by the man then there is a legitimate challenge that orders of the court are void.

The denial of a jury trial is bias.

No contempt of court can be claimed to exist where no jurisdiction exists… and where no order has been
breached because the order is void.
5

If the court does not have jurisdiction… on subject matter… then its order is void… and ignoring those orders is
therefore not a contempt of the court.

Any denial of due process would warrant a claim of a void order.
The rule-of-force.

The threat of force is coercion:

THE JUDGE may take it upon himself to engage force to demonstrate his unproven authority… this would be
deemed a criminal act in the eyes of the man - the man reserves the right to use all lawful means to defend his
rights, freedoms and liberties… and he reserves the right to pursue justice beyond the court system if this fails in
its duty to preserve impartiality.

The people’s authority must prevail – through the rule of law – not the rule-of-force.

If the ‘High Court’ threatens us with violence to secure its claimed authority – we have no option but to concede
under duress. But there should be no doubt about the dynamics of the situation thus created. Our concession
should not be construed as an act of weakness – we will be pragmatic in the face of adversity – and bide our time.
Lawful Rebellion:
The people of Britain have a right to rebel against arbitrary and unjust governance… that this exists is demonstrable. The
Lawful Rebellion movement gathers momentum and the underlying demand is that the government and the judiciary
respect our common law right of which Magna Carta is a foundation.
Where the judiciary will not recognise Magna Carta… we will not recognise them.
The ball is in the court. What game shall we play?
The Real issueThe real purpose of the harassment claim – it is an attempt to gag.
The man has claimed that ‘in his view’ one of the partners, also a plaintiff - Hugh Jones - is a crook who has stolen his
mother’s money.
He has called on the partners in Pannones to investigate and provide a thorough and transparent investigation… which they
have refused to do. Pannones defer their responsibility to an external body… the secretive ‘Court of Protection’ which
according to the accounts of many… is protecting criminality, not vulnerable people.
The man has good cause to claim that there is collusion between Hugh Jones, the Court of Protection and their
ombudsman… again these impressive sounding ‘bodies’ of so called authority are always represented by a single individual,
all of whom hail from the same profession… the opportunity for collusion and corruption is not unimaginable… and hence
why the man has pursued the common law process of a commercial lien.
The man has a lawfully obtained and fully perfected commercial lien against the Pannone Partners to the value of Nine
Million pounds. The man has every right to pursue payment of this debt and no court has the right to deny this.
Another single member of the legal profession (a judge) tried to declare this illegal… which is fine because the commercial
lien process claims no ‘legal’ status… it is entirely an animal of the common law process and is thus ‘lawful’ and derives it
legitimacy through common law and irrefutable logic.
It is telling that Pannones have done everything in their power to avoid the simple process of an internal inquiry into the
allegations of corruption of one of their partners… it raises serious questions as to WHY? What have they got to hide.
6
Pannones get their business from the Court of Protection… the Court of Protection have appointed Hugh Jones… and the
Court of Protection cannot be investigated. Hugh Jones and Pannones could ‘thank’ the Court of Protection and nobody
would know…. The ‘set-up’ is protected… this is probably why it is called the Court of Protection
Pannones are desperate to gag the man… using the harassment Act and the man is determined to expose the alleged
corruption, using the pressure of persistence – because there is no remedy in the legal system.
The man has a duty to prevent crime when he sees it happening… and this is precisely what he is doing.
The man has declared war on Pannones… despite all the pressure he has brought to bear, they have still not investigated
Hugh Jones – ONE HAS TO ASK – WHY?
On the balance of probability… it seems that there is more to Pannone’s refusal to provide a proper and meaningful
explanation of where the man’s mother’s money has gone… in their robustness to avoid answering some simple questions
Pannones have preferred to subjected themselves to a ‘sustained pressure’ to expose the truth.
Pannones would obviously like the pressure to stop… and it is so easily achieved. Provide the answers re the alleged
corruption by Hugh Jones and the problem will disappear.
Sustained pressure… is not harassment. It is a legitimate method to prevent crime when the ‘appropriate bodies’ refuse to
do so.
The Great Irony.
One of the plaintiffs in this matter a Mr Paul Jonson –titles himself as HEAD OF CORPORATE RESOLUTIONS - an offer was
made to Paul Jonson for mediation in an attempt to ‘resolve’ the matter – which was declined by him.
It seems that the Pannones crew are a strange bunch - simple not what they claim to be… with a resolutions department
that avoids resolution and a protection department allegedly not protecting - and with some very important issues about
alleged corruption in their ranks to still to address.
The claim of harassment is a gagging ploy.
The exposure of Pannones as a direct consequence of the man’s probing may reveal that there is more to this than meets
the eye. We should applaud the man for his persistence – and condemn Pannones for their evasion of the truth.T
Pannones had the choice of going the very easy route - by providing transparency and answers to easy questions… or the
enormously hard route of prevarication and dodging the issue - subjecting themselves to a barrage of pressure (all is fair in
love and war… and it is Pannones after all who declared war on the man).
Why did they choose the hard route if they had nothing to hide?
This issue is not going to go away… Pannones need to face up to the reality that they will either settle this matter by
resolution or they are going to spend the next few years fighting more claims… the commercial lien of nine million pounds
is lawfully enforceable… no Statute judge has the authority to defeat a common law process. They are acting beyond their
authority – probably due to ignorance.
Conclusion:
The man has made a statutory declaration that he is NOT the legal fiction Michael Clarke.
The court order that MICHAEL CLARKE appear – has been complied with.
The order if it is claimed to be against the man – is void.
7