Companies and their Services

SENJ Ltd, with a division called Mortgagefree and Natural Justice, provided a free information platform from Jan 2021 to August 2022 and client referral service to UK Galaxy Investments Ltd, with a division called Natural Justice, from Jan 2021 to Nov 2021, that provided customer directed administrative services.

SENJ Ltd, with a division called, Natural Justice, provided customer directed administrative services from Nov 2021 to Aug 2022.

UK Galaxy Investments Ltd, provided an outsourced administration service to SENJ Ltd.

UK Galaxy Investments Ltd outsourced the administration and customer services to CS Insight until May 2021 and then MF Solutions Ltd from May 2021 to Nov 2021.

Lightside BSPC Ltd provided mortgage information services via a DSAR mortgage collection service to SENJ Ltd.

Mortgagefree (Iteration 2) Process

Mortgagefree Iteration 1 customers were offered an upgrade to Mortgagefree Iteration 2 at the cost of £1,000 to cover SENJ Ltd administrative services.

The process illustrated by SENJ Ltd enabled the mortgagor to privately agree that their mortgage was a void nullity from the outset due to the seven reasons listed below. As a result, the customer could create a Commercial Lien over the mortgagee and HM Land Registry with a value greater than the face value of the mortgage and would monetise the lien and use the proceeds to discharge the mortgage.

1. The Mortgagee purchased the Mortgage from you; the Mortgage is treated as security, a form of money and an asset by the Mortgagee.
2. The Contract is unlawful and null and void for lack of consideration; the acceptance of the Contract was induced by the Fraudulent Misrepresentation.
3. The signing of the Deed was induced by the Fraudulent Misrepresentation; the Deed is unlawful and null and void by the Fraudulent Misrepresentation; the Deed was not signed, sealed and delivered as a deed; the date of the Deed is not the date the Deed was signed; the Deed was not properly executed; the Deed is unlawful and null and void for lack of proper execution.
4. The Charge is unlawful and null and void as the Contract and the Deed, upon which the Charge is based, are unlawful and null and void; and that the entry of the Charge on the Title is a mistake.
5. The Provider had no right to grant the Mortgage at its inception; and that the Deed and the Charge are both unlawful and null and void as the Provider had no right to grant the Mortgage.
6. The Mortgagee incorporated a power of attorney clause (the “POA”) into the Mortgage by way of reference to terms and conditions not incorporated directly into the Contract and Deed; the POA is unlawful and null and void as the Contract and the Deed, upon which it is based, are unlawful and null and void; you did not grant or donate any power of attorney in relation to the Mortgage by your freewill act and deed; and that any action bar none taken by anyone pursuant to any presumed power of attorney in relation to the Mortgage is unlawful and null and void.
7. The Mortgage has been sold or transferred, either in whole or in part, to another party or parties (the “Securitisation”) without any right to do so and in breach of your rights of redemption.

Mortgagefree (Iteration 2) Pre-Launch Research

I purchased a course from Simon GOLDBERG of YouAndYourCash and attended a Commercial Lien seminar in 2019 hosted by Simon GOLDBERG and Andrew JACKMAN.

Simon GOLDBERG and Andrew JACKMAN misrepresented the track record of the enforcement of the Commercial Lien process via an alleged Foreign Judgement process.

Andrew JACKMAN signed a Professional Services contract with me in 2020 and provided technical expertise on the Commercial Lien process to me and Terence FRANKS.

Mortgagefree (Iteration 2) Natural Justice Information Platform

The Mortgagefree information platform was owned and controlled by SENJ Ltd;

it provided customers with the following:

• A customer platform welcome email and generic marketing emails.
• Independent void mortgage research via a technical document and video library.
• A description of the Commercial Lien process via a step-by-step document library.

The Natural Justice information platform was owned and controlled by SENJ Ltd;

it provided customers with the following:

• A customer platform welcome email and generic marketing emails.
• A description of the Commercial Lien process via a step-by-step document library.
• An administration account for customers to view their Commercial Lien documents and correspondence.

SENJ Ltd Services

Customers reviewed information within the Mortgagefree and Natural Justice information platforms and attended webinars with presentations from me, Andrew JACKMAN and Matthew FANTHOM.

Customers interacted with an education team employed by CS Insight Ltd and MF Solutions Ltd.

Customers that proceeded with a Mortgagefree and Natural Justice process signed an administrative engagement contract with SENJ Ltd.

SENJ Ltd outsourced customer services and administration services to UK Galaxy Investment Ltd who outsourced administration and customers services to CS Insight Ltd and MF Solutions Ltd.

The customer instructed SENJ Ltd to act as their administrator and postal agent to issue templated Commercial Lien papers in the customer’s name and from the customer to the customers mortgage provider and HM Land Registry.

The customer instructed SENJ Ltd to obtain a Commercial Lien Foreign Judgment that could be enforced against the customers mortgage provider and HM Land Registry via a Part 8 money Claim at the Kings Bench.

Mortgagefree (Iteration 2) and Natural Justice Customer Hold Harmless

Customers via an Engagement contract agreed to hold SENJ Ltd harmless and not to hold either company liable for damages or injury caused to them by the Mortgagefree or Natural Justice process.

Natural Justice Process

Customers directed their own Natural Justice process by appointing SENJ Ltd as their administrator to insert customer details into templated Affidavits, Notices and Bills and send same from the customer to the mortgagee’s and HM Land Registry.

Neither the mortgagee’s or HM Land Registry received correspondence from Mortgagefree or Natural Justice or SENJ Ltd.

Mortgagefree (Iteration 2) Regulatory Status

SENJ Ltd (Mortgagefree, Natural Justice) provided a free information platform and customer directed administration service.

SENJ Ltd (Mortgagefree, Natural Justice) did not seek out or refer clients for civil litigation services as there was no civil litigation service provided.

SENJ Ltd (Mortgagefree, Natural Justice) did not provide debt management or claims management services.

Mortgagefree (Iteration 2) Process Withdrawal

The process was withdrawn by SENJ Ltd in August 2022 following the realisation that the mortgagees and HM Land Registry had the right of appeal and would likely challenge the Foreign Judgement on procedural grounds leaving the mortgagor at risk of losing the Part 8 Money claim and paying court costs as in most cases the mortgagor was not able to be represented by a lawyer/barrister.

Mortgagefree (Iteration 1) (Iteration 2) Natural Justice Fee Refund Remedies

As there was no breach of the administrative contracts by Strax Capital Legal Ltd, Wealth Fortress 1 Ltd, SENJ Ltd customers are not entitled to a fee refund.

I am offering to share my compensation from high court proceedings against Simon GOLDBERG, Andrew JACKMAN and Simone MARSHALL, details of my cases here:

Fee Refund Alternative

I also offer Mortgagefree customers a free upgrade to my Financial Abundance Program, detailed here;

Financial Abundance Program

Allegations of Fraud by Empower The People (EtP)

MATRIXFREEDOM competitors Simon Goldberg and Simone Marshall at EmpowerThePeople (EtP) have created various libellous online materials against me and MATRIXFREEDOM.

EtP are breaching the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by soliciting Sovereign Reserve customers to make donations to an EtP unauthorised litigation crowd fund.

Simon GOLDBERG and Simon MARSHALL via numerous online publications harass me and my team at MATRIXFREEDOM via criminal gang known as the White Rabbit Posse with the purpose of recruiting potential litigants, details here:

Criminal Activity White Rabbit Posse

Empower the people Fraud Allegations:

• Iain Clifford STAMP was solely responsible for information materials provided to Mortgagefree customers.
• Iain Clifford STAMP employed staff that made fraudulent Mortgagefree misrepresentations.
• Iain Clifford STAMP provided a debt management service via the Mortgagefree process.
• Iain Clifford STAMP claimed a 100% track record that mortgages had been discharged and removed from HM Land Registry by applying the Mortgagefree process.
• Misrepresentations were made about Mortgagefree by Iain Clifford STAMP on a webinar or webinars.
• Misrepresentations were made via generic emails issued by the
• Mortgagefree information platform.
• Misrepresentations were made by Iain Clifford STAMP fraudulently.
• Iain Clifford STAMP intended to cause Mortgagefree customer’s harm.

The Law “Fraud Act 2006”
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

If the defendant:

• made a false representation
• dishonestly
• knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
• with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The Law “Fraud Act 2006”
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

If the defendant:

• made a false representation
• dishonestly
• knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
• with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

Section 2 (2) defines the meaning of “false” and Section 2 (3) defines the meaning of “representation”.

A “representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of the person making the representation or any other person (Section 2 (3)).

An example of the latter might be where a defendant claims that a third party intends to carry out a certain course of action perhaps to make a will in someone’s favour. It may be difficult to prove to the necessary standard that the Defendant knew the state of mind of a third party, but easier to prove that he knew what it might be.

A representation may be express or implied (Section 2 (4)). It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation may be expressed.

A representation can be made by omission, for example, by omitting to mention previous convictions or County Court Judgements on an application form.

An offence may be completed when the defendant fails to correct a false impression after a change in circumstances from the original representation (if the representation may be regarded as a continuing series of representations).

A representation can be made to a machine (Section 2 (5)), for example, where a person enters a number into a CHIP and PIN machine or a bank ATM; or gives false credit card details to the voice activated software on a telephone line; or gives false credit card details to a supermarket website to obtain groceries.

Evidence is necessary to prove that the defendant communicated the false representation to a person or to a machine. It is not relevant whether the false representation is believed or has any affect on any other person.

In some cases it will not be necessary to call evidence from a victim, but prosecutors should bear in mind that a victim who is not named on an indictment or in a TIC cannot be compensated.

Untrue or misleading

A representation is defined as “false” if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Actual knowledge that the representation might be untrue is required not awareness of a risk that it might be untrue.

Dishonesty

In Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017], Lord Hughes of Ombersley suggested that the Ghosh test was wrong. At paragraph 74 he said ‘the Ghosh test does not correctly represent the law and that directions based upon it ought no longer to be given’.

He went on to provide an alternative two-stage test:

• what was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; and
• was his [the defendants] conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

In R. v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim Mr Barton and Mrs Booth appealed their convictions on the grounds that the trial Judge had erred in directing the Jury on the issue of dishonesty by applying Lord Hughes’ new two stage test, which was obiter dictum, and not the two stage test set out in R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2.

Iain Clifford STAMP Fraud Defence

• I was responsible for information materials provided to Mortgagefree customers for Iteration 1 of Mortgagefree. There were no misrepresentations made my me. Strax Capital Legal Ltd provided the mortgage report and HM Land Registry Indemnity claim service.
• I did not employ any staff until November 2021, I outsourced the administrative functions to CS Insight Ltd and MF Solutions Ltd under the control of Matt Fanthom. CS Insight and MF Solutions Ltd employed the staff for most of the time Mortgagefree Iteration 1 and 2 operated. I don’t believe that CS Insight or MF Solutions Ltd staff made fraudulent misrepresentations.
• I did not and nor did any of my companies provide a debt management service via the Mortgagefree process.
  I did not and nor did any of my companies claim a 100% track record that mortgages had been discharged and removed from HM Land Registry by applying the Mortgagefree process.
• I did make representations about Mortgagefree on a webinar or webinars, with good reasons, I believed my representations to be true.
• I did not and nor did any of my companies make misrepresentations via generic emails issued by the Mortgagefree or Natural Justice information platforms. The information platforms made representations believed to be true. The information platforms for Mortgagefree Interaction 2 was under the control of SENJ Ltd.
• I did not and nor did any of my companies make fraudulent misrepresentations and I don’t believe that any fraudulent misrepresentations were made by and of the companies involved.
• I did not and nor did any of my companies make fraudulent misrepresentations intended to cause Mortgagefree customer’s harm.
• The Mortgagefree Iteration 1 process was withdrawn by Strax and Wealth Fortress 1 Ltd in Jan 2021 following the rejection of similar HM Land Registry indemnity applications made by the Great British Mortgage Swindle (GBMS) organisation on the grounds that mortgages are registered with them under common practice. To overturn this Mortgagefree customers would be required to plead their case at the High Courts of Justice, and this would have required expensive representation from a lawyer and barrister.
  The Mortgagefree Iteration 2 process was withdrawn by SENJ Ltd in August 2022 following the realisation that the mortgagees and HM Land Registry had the right of appeal and would likely challenge the Foreign Judgement on procedural grounds leaving the mortgagor at risk of losing the Part 8 Money claim and paying court costs as in most cases the mortgagor was not able to be represented by a lawyer/barrister.

Mortgagefree (Iteration 2) Background

I purchased a Commercial Lien course from Simon GOLDBERG’s membership-based website YouAndYourCash on May 17th 2020.

Representations were provided to me by Simon GOLDBERG and Andrew JACKMAN of YouAndYourCash that they had developed a Commercial Lien enforcement and monetisation process via a Foreign Judgement.

Andrew JACKMAN provided me with Professional Services and held himself out as an expert in Private Law and Commercial Liens via a contract executed in July 2020.

Andrew JACKMAN created information guides that were made available via document libraries at Mortgagefree (Iteration 2) and Natural Justice information platforms.

Simon GOLDBERG and Andrew JACKMAN misrepresented their track record of the monetisation of Commercial Liens via a Foreign Judgement. There was no track record.

I carried out extensive research into the effectiveness of Private Law and its reliance on Maxims of law, I remain satisfied that Private Law does create an agreement between parties that could lead to the registration of a Commercial Lien over wrongdoers.

The Question of My Liability

Following a thorough review of the law of contract, the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the Fraud Act of 2006 I hold no liability at law to Mortgagefree customers.

No misrepresentations were made by me related to Mortgagefree Iteration 1 and I did not breach any contract with the customers for Mortgagefree Iteration 1.

I was not responsible for representations made on the Mortgagefree Iteration 2 or Natural Justice information platforms as these were controlled by SENJ Ltd. I believe that representations made by SENJ Ltd about the Mortgagefree Iteration 2 or Natural Justice process via their information platforms were believed with good reason to be true.

I made representations about the Mortgagefree Iteration 1 and 2 process on webinars that I believed with good reason to be true.

I did not seek out, refer customers for litigation services nor did I provide debt management, debt counselling or debt adjusting services.

The Question of Third-Party Liability

Mortgagefree Iteration 1 customers may have suffered loss due to HM Land Registry asserting that they won’t remove mortgage charges and pay indemnity die to their reliance on common practice and may sue HM Land Registry and or their mortgage provider for their damages.

Mortgagefree Iteration 2 customers may have experienced loss due to misrepresentations made by Simon GOLDBERG and Andrew JACKMAN and may sue for their damages because Simon GOLDBERG and Andrew JACKMAN have a third-party liability to them.

The Question of Remedy

As a gesture of goodwill, I am offering the following remedies to Mortgagefree customers that may have suffered damage.

A free upgrade to my Financial Abundance program

Free information on a process that does have a 100% track record of removal of mortgage charges and receiving compensation from the mortgage provider.

A share in my compensation via high Court lawsuits against Simon GOLDBERG, Andrew JACKMAN and Simone MARSHALL.