i :iain-clifford: stamp
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTOR
GENERAL POST OFFICE
IN THE COUNTY OF HAMPSHIRE
IN THE AREA KNOWN AS ENGLAND
NOTICE OF
REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTIONS OF THE BAR GUILD

i :iain-clifford: stamp holding the Office of Executor of the IAIN CLIFFORD STAMP, Estate

Rebut all twelve (12) critical presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds:

  1. Public Record.
  2. Public Service.
  3. Public Oath.
  4. Immunity.
  5. Summons.
  6. Custody.
  7. Court of Guardians.
  8. Court of Trustees.
  9. Government as Executor/Beneficiary.
  10. Agent and Agency.
  11. Incompetence.
  12. Guilt.

Rebutted: The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a state Court is a matter for the public record when in fact, it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating the matter is to be on the Public Records, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Public Record as it is, by definition, a presumption and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

Rebutted: The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government or public officials by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private “superior” oaths to their Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the Claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and, therefore, trustees under public Oath;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Public Service as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting as “public officials” who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that Oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartially and fairly as dictated by their Oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public Oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Public Oath as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of “public officials” acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their Oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors, and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Summons is that by custom, a summons unrebutted stands; therefore, one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the Court. Attendance to Court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed before choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of “guilt” stands;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Summons as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Custody is that by custom, a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands, and therefore, one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by “Custodians”. Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of the property and “things”, not flesh and blood, soul-possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by the rejection of summons and at Court, the presumption stands i am a thing and property and, therefore, lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Custody as it is, by definition, a presumption and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as i may be listed as a “resident” of a ward of a local government area and have listed on my “passport” the letter P, i am a pauper and therefore under the “Guardian” powers of the Government and its agents as a “Court of Guardians”. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate i am both a general guardian and general Executor of the matter (trust) before the Court, the presumption stands, and i am, by default, a pauper and lunatic and, therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court);

Rebutted: The Presumption of Guardians as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume i accept the office of trustee as a “public servant” and “government employee” just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state I am merely visiting by “invitation” to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction – simply because i “appeared.”

Rebutted: The Presumption of Trustees as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoints the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor. In contrast, the Prosecutor acts as the Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. Suppose the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul. In that case, they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a “false executor” challenging the “rightful” judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of “true” Executor and has the right to have me arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate I am the proper general guardian and general Executor of the matter (trust) before the Court, questioning and challenging whether the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and i am by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the Executor (judge/magistrate) or i am an Executor De Son Tort and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false Claim against me;

Rebutted: The Presumption of the Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary, as it is a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

Rebutted: The Presumption of Agent and Agency is the presumption that under contract law, you have expressed and granted authority to the Judge and Magistrate through the statement of “recognise, understand” or “comprehend” and therefore agree to be bound to a contract. Therefore, unless all presumptions of agent appointment are rebutted through the use of such formal rejections as “I do not recognise you”, to remove all implied or expressed appointment of the judge, Prosecutor or clerk as agents, the presumption stands. i agree to be contractually bound to perform at the judge's or magistrate's direction,

Rebutted: The Presumption of Agent and Agency as it is a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the Law, therefore, incompetent to present yourself and argue correctly. Thus, the judge/magistrate as Executor has the right to have me arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that I know my position as Executor and Beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that I am incompetent, then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient;

Rebutted: The Presumption of Incompetence as it is a presumption that has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

Rebutted: The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead “guilty”, do not plead or plead “not guilty”. Therefore unless I have previously prepared an affidavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is i am guilty, and the private Bar Guild can hold me until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the Guild wants to profit from me.

Rebutted: The Presumption of Guilt as it is a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact;

Certificate of Service

i :iain-clifford: stamp CERTIFY the foregoing was provided by UK Special delivery mailed to:

Judge Baumgarten (Trustee)

Southwark Crown Court

1 English Grounds. Southwark

London

SE1 2HU

Victoria Prentis

Attorney General

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9EA

United Kingdom.

13th May 2024

As per Section 196(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) provides that: “Any notice shall also be sufficiently served if it is served by registered post or recorded delivery by virtue of section 1 of the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962” Furthermore: Under section 127(4) of the Postal Services Act 2000 (PSA 2000) and PSA 2000, Sch 8 Pt II, paras 2–3.