Keison International Ltd.
PO Box 2124
CHELMSFORD CM1 3UP
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1245 600560
Fax: +44 1245 808399
Email: info@keison.co.uk
19 May, 2016
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth [II]
Windsor Castle
England
May it please Your Majesty,
Final decision by Mr. Registrar Baister in the High Court 9 May, 2016
When Keison International Limited (hereinafter called the company) were served with the
purported statutory demand and covering letter from Hill & Abbott, the inference was that the
company either pay the sum demanded by Hill & Abbott or they would seek to wind up the
company. The statutory demand gave no other options.
Upon closer examination of the statutory demand, it was discovered that the crucial part relating to
the right of the company to apply for an injunction had been deliberately omitted.
This omission was grounds for the subsequent letter from the company to the bankruptcy court on 5
May, 2016 and was a complete defense to any proceedings in this matter as the statutory demand
did not comply with the statutory requirements and rules pursuant to it, making it a nullity.
This being so, the company did not need to take any further action and would rely on the void
proceedings should the matter proceed to a winding up petition hearing.
A winding up petition was issued on 18 March, 2016 and the matter set down for hearing on 9 May,
2016 at 10:30 am.
On Thursday 5 May, 2016, the company faxed and couriered a letter to the Bankruptcy Court laying
out the reasons for not complying with the statutory demand and any other proceedings based on it.
The letter was to be presented as evidence in the winding up petition hearing before Registrar
Baister on 9 May, 2016 and referred to two claim numbers, one relating to the Winding Up Petition
CR-2016-001440 and the other for an Administration Application C12-2016-002292 ('C12' was
later penned out1 and replaced by 'CR' on the “order”).
The only notice that the company had received for the Administration Application was via an email
sent to Keir Argent by Doug Frame of Hill & Abbott and dated 27 April, 2016 at 16:57 hrs.
Attached to the email were the application notice and other documents, minus the supporting
evidence, that were apparently personally served on the company that same day.
1

Indicating, we believe, to those in the know of this 'code', that the document is fraudulent.
Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559

The email did not specifically say who served the documents on the company but the witness
statement of Doug Frame dated 4 May, 2016, confirmed that he effected personal service.
On 4 May, 2016 at around 17:40 hrs, some documents were delivered to the company by a young
man driving a Saab with a hand written note from Doug Frame asking that they be inserted into “the
bundle”.
This was to imply that the company was already in possession of “the bundle” that Doug Frame had
purportedly personally served on the company on 27 April, 2016.
The Application Notice and supporting documents, including the supporting evidence was
never served on the company, the witness statement of Doug Frame notwithstanding.
Unusually, process servers were not utilised throughout these proceedings as Doug Frame thought
fit to effect service of legal process himself. In a document with the title “witness statement”, there
is a paragraph which claims to be a statement of truth in support of the statutory demand. To our
knowledge Doug Frame has not completed an affidavit of service that must be filed in support of
service of the administration application. The witness statement gives no other details of the person
served or method of service.
One must wonder why the imperative that service of the statutory demand, the winding up petition
and the administration application were effected the same day they were either drawn up or issued,
albeit the sealed administration application was never formally served on the company.
We now have a knowingly defective statutory demand fraudulently used to obtain a winding
up petition and an Administration Application with the company receiving no formal notice of the
hearing of the Application.
As the company had never been served with the Administration Application, they were not
represented at the hearing on 6 May, 2016, before Mr Justice Morgan, and were unaware that an
Administration Order had been granted and the winding up petition ordered to be dismissed.
The hearing of the winding up petition came before Mr Registrar Baister on 9 May, 2016 and the
petition was dismissed. The company believes that this decision was made in light of the letter
presented to the court and has ended present proceedings in this matter.
It then came to the attention of the company in an email dated 16 May, 2016, where Doug Frame
confirmed that the letter sent to the bankruptcy court, had also been brought to the attention of Mr
Justice Morgan, together with Court of Record documents.
It would seem that in order to bring life to a dead document, Mr Justice Morgan ignored the
contents of the company letter dated 5th May 2016 pointing out the fundamental defect in the
statutory demand and granted the administration application and ordered that the winding up
petition be dismissed, not by him, but by Mr Registrar Baister on 9 May, 2016.
The same proceedings cannot be dismissed by two different judges, if Mr Justice Morgan
dismissed the winding up petition then Registrar Baister would have had nothing to dismiss at
his hearing.

Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559

Even if Mr Registrar Baister was compelled to strike the claim out for reasons given in the letter
from the company, he was unable to do so. He was ordered to dismiss the winding up petition. The
decision was not of his own accord or freely given.
Mr Justice Morgan granted the Administration Application for the company to be run by
administrators even though it had been brought to his attention by way of the company letter, that
not only is the statutory demand defective and a nullity, but that it applied to any other proceedings,
such as the administration application that flowed from it. This is the tyranny of a Star Chamber
Court with Dual Roman Magistracy2.
The decision of Mr Justice Morgan has caused tremendous upheaval within the company and
prevented the company from continuing to trade in lawful manner. It appears that the purpose is to
destroy the company using colour of law fraud.
The company also noticed that there was no advertisement placed in the Gazette at least 7 working
days before the hearing saying the petition has been served and it is therefore unlikely that a copy of
the advertisement and a certificate of compliance was sent to the court at least 5 working days
before the hearing.

If the court accepts your petition, they’ll arrange a date for a hearing.
The court hearing
Announce the hearing
When you’re given a date for the hearing, you must formally announce when and where it will take place.
1) Use form 4.6 to place an advert in The Gazette at least 7 working days before the hearing saying the
petition has been served.
2) Send a copy of the advertisement and a certificate of compliance to the court at least 5 working days
before the hearing.
3) Give a list of everyone who will be attending to the court by 4:30pm on the day before the hearing.
Quoted from: https://www.gov.uk/wind-up-a-company-that-owes-you-money/the-court-hearing

At approximately 09:00 on Monday 9 May 2016, administrator Abigail Jones arrived at the property
at 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, claimed to be in possession of a 'court order' and proceeded to
demand entry under its 'authority', this despite a clear notice at the entrance "Court of Record Trust
Property". The bank accounts of HSBC, Lloyds and Barclays were inoperable that morning,
indicating collusion of the banks without lawful due process or authority. There is mounting
evidence that international banks and bankers are in collusion as well.

LEGAL TUTORIAL: The Steps of Common Fraud:
Step 1: Fraud in the Inducement: “… is intended to and which does cause
one to execute an instrument, or make an agreement… The
misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he signs
but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false
impression it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or render a
judgment” Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition,
Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.

2

This is covered in the Court of Record proceedings, www.courtofrecord.uk/timber.
Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559

Step 2: Fraud in Fact by Deceit (Obfuscation and Denial) and Theft:
• “ACTUAL FRAUD. Deceit. Concealing something or making a false
representation with an evil intent [scanter] when it causes injury to
another…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition,
Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
• “THE TORT OF FRAUDULENT DECEIT… The elements of actionable deceit are:
A false representation of a material fact made with knowledge of its
falsity, or recklessly, or without reasonable grounds for believing its
truth, and with intent to induce reliance thereon, on which plaintiff
justifiably relies on his injury…”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law
Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.,
2003, s.v.: ‘Deceit’.
Step 3: Theft by Deception and Fraudulent Conveyance:
THEFT BY DECEPTION:
• “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT… The hiding or suppression of a material fact
or circumstance which the party is legally or morally bound to disclose…”.
• “The test of whether failure to disclose material facts constitutes
fraud is the existence of a duty, legal or equitable, arising from the
relation of the parties: failure to disclose a material fact with intent
to mislead or defraud under such circumstances being equivalent to an
actual ‘fraudulent concealment’…”.
• To suspend running of limitations, it means the employment of
artifice, planned to prevent inquiry or escape investigation and mislead
or hinder acquirement of information disclosing a right of action, and
acts relied on must be of an affirmative character and fraudulent…”.
Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., 'Black’s Law Dictionary’, Revised
4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent
Concealment’.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE:
• ‘FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE… A conveyance or transfer of property, the
object of which is to defraud a creditor, or hinder or delay him, or to
put such property beyond his reach…”.
• “Conveyance made with intent to avoid some duty or debt due by or
incumbent or person (entity) making transfer…”.
Source: Black, Henry Campbell, M.A., ‘Black’s Law Dictionary', Revised
4th Edition, St Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, s.v. ‘Fraudulent
Conveyance’.

Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559

Fraud by Doug Frame from Hill & Abbott is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 sections 2, 3:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/crossheading/fraud
1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide
for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are—
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding
the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference
to 6 months.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(I) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including3 a representation as to the
state of mind of —
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.

3

Did Parliament commit fraud by not using an including but not limited to? It is our wish that the Court of Record
investigate the Law Commission and all members involved.
Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is
submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications
(with or without human intervention).
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he —
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(I) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of
another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(I) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an
omission rather than an act.
5 “Gain” and “loss”
(1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance with this section.
(2) “Gain” and “loss”—
(a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;
and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including 4 things in action and other intangible
property).
(3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have.
(4) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has.
6 Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the
course of or in connection with any fraud.

4

Once again, is this use of 'including' mean including but not limited to?
Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding
the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both).
(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference
to 6 months.
7 Making or supplying articles5 for use in frauds
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding
the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference
to 6 months.
8 “Article”
(1) For the purposes of—
(a) sections 6 and 7, and
(b) the provisions listed in subsection (2), so far as they relate to articles for use in the course of or in
connection with fraud,
“article” includes6 any program or data held in electronic form.

Doug Frame et al have broken each and every one of the above and are fully accountable under
UNITED KINGDOM PLC statutes and the Common Law of England, which is, as is known
amongst the cognoscenti, to be based on the Word of God revealed in the King James Bible.
It is of vital importance to take conscious cognisance, that prior to my return to UK on 5 December,
2015 and anticipating my possible demise or incapacity, I had prepared a signed document placing
my affairs in the hands of Joseph Ray Sundarsson, Special Master of the Court of Record, should
the latter take place.
5
6

Every document produced by solicitor Doug Frame is an article for use in fraud.
As his 'articles' were sent both in paper and electronic form, even the statutory dodge of 'includes' will not assist
Douglas Frame, Hill and Abbot, H.W. Fisher and Company and the Mr. Justice Morgan from the maximum penalty
under the statutes of the UNITED KINGDOM, the law they claim to revere.
Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559

As it happened I was assaulted and battered in my own home and within an hour, police were called
whereupon I was incarcerated at Chelmsford Police Station, while my wife and family abandoned
me to take their Christmas holidays and cruises. During my incarceration, my family had taken that
statement from my private papers and placed it in the hands of Doug Frame, witnessed by Minal
Backhouse.
Whilst fortunately still living, I am denied the capacity to manage my business, therefore Joseph
Ray Sundarsson, Special Master of the Court of Record, is now in charge of these affairs.
All are equal under God's law, even one's own son. My son lives in a Christian kingdom,
behaves like a tyrant and has committed Treason. He appears not to understand the meaning of
words, he has had no change of heart as claimed by Doug Frame.
I can see that the Court of Record is leading to Truth, how Joseph Ray Sundarsson is a man of
YHVH and I trust him. Like Jesus outlined in Luke 19, my company is my vineyard that I left
and went away and now these administrators think it is theirs.
As the fountain of justice, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth [II], our living Queen, must appoint all
magistrates who are guardians of her Majesty's Coronation oath. Her Majesty may constitute legal
courts for the administration of the general law of the land, but Her Majesty cannot erect tribunals
not proceeding according to the known and established law of the realm, such as the Star Chamber
forbidden by the 1688 Bill of Rights or the commissions of martial law forbidden by the 1628
Petition of Right.
The hearing of 6th May 2016 before Mr Justice Morgan did not proceed according to these
principles and was therefore operating de facto Star Chamber proceedings. The administration
order is a brutum fulmen and it has no lawful authority and like the statutory demand, is void ab
initio.
Mr Justice Morgan, by usurping Her Majesty's authority, doth compass or imagine the death of
Her Majesty, which is an overt act of treason under the treason act of 1351 (C2).
Consequent to the Letter Rogatory to the British Cabinet/Parliament7 by the Court of Record, all
officials were stripped of immunity and limited liability by the Motu Proprio of His Holiness
Pope Francis of 11 July, 2013 and effective from 1 September, 2013.
There is a saying one bad apple spoils the whole barrel. Find one rotten apple and all have to go.
It is our wish that in the public interest, those arrested are questioned, leading to arrests of all
colluding parties and puppet-masters worldwide.
In the Westminster system of nations, the Bishop of Rome is the settlor of the law, the unalterable
Law of God to Your Majesty, with the resulting corporate 'nation states', for example, UNITED
KINGDOM, or for example, PANAMA8.
As banks are the instrumentality of the 'nation state', all bankers worldwide, private or public,
national association or credit cooperative, central bank or retail, are subject to Your Majesty's
authority of arrest, wherever in the world they may be.
7
8

www.courtofrecord.uk/British-PDF
Further information on this matter sub judice regarding Panama shall follow in due course to Your Majesty.
Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559

As a member of the Court of Record, I am aware of steps in Admiralty to arrest the Treasonous
bankers, for example, in Hong Kong. It is my wish that Your Majesty act with due speed to hold all
lawyers, solicitors, bankers and governments fully accountable.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1990/apr/18/courts-and-legal-servicesbill#S6CV0170P0_19900418_HOC_261
Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)
"Any attempt to water down the collective responsibility of judges, who have exercised such rights since
time immemorial, would be wrong."

Summary Judgement
It is my wish as plaintiff, that Doug Frame, Alexis Argent, Abigail Jones, Brian Johnson and Mark
Gishen are arrested and delivered to the custody of the Her Royal Highness Princess Anne, The
Princess Royal, in Her Majesty's Court of St James.
I adore YHVH, BEING, the LORD, with all my heart for Your Majesty!
Yours faithfully,
KEISON INTERNATIONAL LTD

Keir Argent
Managing Director

Registered address: 32 Writtle Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3BX
Incorporated in England with Registration No: 01964559