Complaint to Regional Preston Combined Courts/Court of Protection ref 10370284
Deputy failure to respond to continued backdated claim for funds
Dear Sirs
Although I consider it a fruitless exercise I hereby write another letter of complaint.
The following letter has not been responded to by the deputy HUGH JONES;
Ref Ann Clarke – 10370284 – Court of Protection
dated – 02/03/2012 6am
Mr Jones
Thank you for your reply.
Firstly, can I point out that;
You no longer have any consent from my mother to with hold any funds or manage her affairs in any way shape or form. It has been removed. Backed by her reports of capacity.
The so called liability you refer is the liability you created by the sudden reduction of household income by 90 percent not expected till January, in an effort to prevent mother’s recruitment of additional legal help to secure the release of 10 years accounts amongst other things that you were afraid of and in doing so created the liability of not only the Villa rent but also the protesting and ultimately the commercial lien served upon you and your fellow directors.
What might we ask is your comments about the new liabilities brought about as a result of your actions where we both have been driven from our home in Blackpool out of fear from possible loss of liberty brought about by another unlawful hearing conducted again without consent, where we have been forced to live in other peoples properties at additional expenses where funds have not been available to us and where we need to service this liability now!
With regard to the intended court hearing, delayed unlawfully by Judge Batten again I re-iterate my mother has refused to give any further consent to the courts to conduct anymore further unlawful administrative hearings which without her consent, where capacity is indeed quite legally visible and provable, it indeed becomes an unlawful hearing and where in reality is not necessary as her capacity should not be Judged or affected by the un-creditworthy, biased testimony of yourself and my sister, her daughter, whom I might add are both proved to be un-credit worthy and therefore unjustly being used to pervert and affect the outcome in an unlawful hearing that has been refused consent from a person whom has proven capacity to take such a decision.
Her release from your unlawful clutches should be without any further distress what so ever. In a common law court where there would be a jury of 12 there would not be any such perversion of Justice.
Further to the above, my mother and I have complete and utter distrust in the UK statute system without common law hearings with a Jury of 12 and where matters are still being conducted in an unjust statute manner riding roughshod over the clear and concise refusal of consent to such, it has evolved to the exile we now live in and as such will not return to the UK without assureties to both our safety of liberty and assureties of not being harassed or intimidated by your attempted serving of unlawful documents to the legal fiction MICHAEL CLARKE within or around any proposed hearing to be conducted that we might add again has in itself a clear and concise written refusal of consent by my mother to Judge Batten that is hereby underlined.
This matter in its entirety is deteriorating/spiralling out of control Mr Jones.
You need urgently to reconsider and recognise your disproportionate use of unlawful activities you and others are using to attempt to control and subvert an individuals clear and concise rights to free choices under HUMAN RIGHTS ACTS.
I have already submitted to you in the previous email to this that my mother will wait no longer for matters of resolution and just in case you did not read it I hereby enclose another copy below.
copy email of WARNING
ref 10370284
Mr Jones
My mother produced a letter & sent some time ago refusing to give any further consent to anyone dealing with her affairs inclusive of you. She also produced and published on our website a video of her stating the same.
Anyone doing such, is liable to further actions.
You are in receipt of various reports that confirm her capacity from 3 different doctors over a ten year period, 2 from 10 years ago and 2 recent. You are not qualified in any way, shape or form to judge these matters.
On the above basis, she no longer gives any consent for you to deal with any of her affairs, regardless of on-going current, kangaroo court, unlawful administrative processes, again which consent has been denied.
Without her consent and with her capacity, you cannot have any claim over her, by common law.
Therefore any enquiries you are making are denied any consent to respond or to deal with and therefore her funds requested that are remaining, she requests immediate release without further distress.
She can confirm that you have presented her a fear of living in the UK that her liberty and mine is threatened and thereby our confirmed address remains her business and mine which she no longer gives you or the court any consent to have.
She has informed me that without you cooperating and thus continuing to cause her further distress she intends to publish documents about the debt, she also believes you are in, to ourselves via a perfected lawful commercial lien, that she holds over you and your company and also over Martin John chief executive of the court.
This has been on hold to see if the court and yourself are going to cooperate but it unfortunately appears that your approved correspondence today, shows that you are adamantly not going to cooperate.
The court also shows no signs of cooperation either with Judge Batten’s delays in the technical release of my mother from her and your unlawful clutches.
You have driven mother out of her home and you have driven me also out of that home, she is beginning to have a distinct loss of patience in this matter and therefore wants to progress matters to a more serious level.
She believes its your turn, to start feeling the pressures placed upon us.
Seeing as I am completely not in control of my mother and especially after reading her reports that state her capacity, of which, to be honest was the same ten years ago, where I believed in her capacity, I have told her she may proceed on however direction she choses.
She is the one ultimately whom is losing out on life because of your actions and the kangaroo court, of unlawful administrative hearings, undergoing without the persons consent based on obvious medical specialists confirmed appraisal of capacity.
You are warned here and now, alongside this copied to the court that this matter is going to escalate very shortly!
Ann Clarke
Mike Clarke
From: Hugh Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:42 PM
To: Mike Clarke
Cc: David Hilton
Subject: RE: with held funds
Dear Mike,
I apologize for not responding earlier. However the position is that a date has not yet been set for the hearing. When it has then I will make funds available for travel.
The withheld funds will continue to be withheld until I have confirmation from the landlord that there is no outstanding liability.
Yours sincerely,
Hugh Jones
Head of Private Client and Court of Protection Groups
For and on behalf of Pannone LLP
Direct:  +44 (0) 161 909 1554
Office: +44 (0) 161 909 3000
Mobile: +44 (0) 7879891010
Fax:  +44 (0) 161 909 4444
       Pannone LLP
123 Deansgate
M3 2BU
"Excellent in every way"
- Legal 500 2011
Pannone LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC317202 and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered office: 123 Deansgate Manchester M3 2BU where a list of Members and Partners is open for inspection. We use the word 'partner' to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications.
This email and any attachments are confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. The contents of this email may be intercepted, monitored and/or recorded. We accept no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan the email and any attachments. If this message is transmitted over the internet be aware that it may be intercepted by a third party for which we exclude any liability in negligence or otherwise. 
From: Mike Clarke []
Sent: 26 February 2012 12:56
To: Hugh Jones
Subject: with held funds
2nd copy email dated today Sunday 26th February 2012
Mr Jones
We wrote to you on Friday last the 24th February 2012.
We expected a reply before the close of business but did not get one.
We therefore enclose the second copy listed below.
There is an urgency here for this matter to be addressed as we believe your motives for not responding on this matter is to delay it, so as to facilitate your submission of your annual accounts charges due very shortly, in which may wipe out the remaining funds of cash available to mum.
We therefore send this second request because as you are aware these outstanding funds are overdue, long overdue by 5 months, and in actual fact are part of the original household expenses that you conveniently divided into two some time ago and then tried referring to them as gratuitous care monies.
This problem I re-iterate, you, were the sole creator of, and hence we believe now is the correct time to put the matter right.
copied 1st email;
Friday 24th February 2012
Mr jones
There is an attended hearing to be held at Preston in relation to mums application to be released from the court of protection as one assumes you are aware.
You are one assumes aware that because of your onslaught of activities at mums bungalow and neighbours, where your attempted service of documents was beginning to frighten my mother and so we left the house and home to stay elsewhere and now we are living abroad once more.
I write to advise that in order to facilitate any such hearing or further moves we are not in any financial position to accommodate it, as you are still with holding funds from where there is still no liability, a sum totalling currently of £2000.
Because this liability no longer exists and in our mind never did from the beginning we request the re-imbursement of such with immediate effect.
We must also point out that the original so called liability, was a liability that you created in the first instant.
We will be writing to Preston Combined Courts today in this very instant matter to express our vulnerabilities that you have placed us in.
You were refused any consent to proceed in the manners you have.
Mike Clarke
Ann Clarke