Ingeus Abuse 7 – Matthew Flood Contempt Of Court

On 4th November 2015, Matthew Flood, who goes by the extraordinary title of “Global General Counsel” (more properly “Global General Clownsel” or “Global General Contemnor”), produced a so-called “defence” to the prevailing claim in my case against Ingeus (UK) Ltd.

The defence is literally riddled like a cancer with contempts of court – deliberate lies on the Statement of Case which Flood knows beyond doubt are blatant lies.

I cannot particularise all of these contempts in this article, as some are only proven by documentation revealed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in response to a Letter Before Claim. The Civil Procedure Rules forbid the use of evidence obtained in this manner for any purpose other than litigation. However, there are many contempts which can be demonstrated and proven here without relying on confidential evidence. Here is a sample, albeit not an all-encompassing sample, of Flood’s contempts of court –

Paragraph 2 of the Defence states that the Independent Case Examiner and Parliamentary Ombudsman both “rejected” the claimant’s case against Ignoramus. In reality, the Parliamentary Ombudsman only investigated ICE, and did not carry out an investigation into Ignoramus.

Paragraph 15 contains contempts which are known to Flood to be false. These contempts cannot be specified here as they are proven to be contempts by evidence revealed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in response to a Letter Before Claim.

Paragraph 19 is a contempt. It denies that crucial probative evidence was logged on to the system, despite the fact that such data retention is mandated by the Data Protection Act 1998.

Paragraph 20 is another deliberate lie. The claimant is alleged to have approached a certain individual on a certain date, when this allegation has never been made before during the entire three years that this case has dragged through the pre-litigation process.

Paragraph 54 also contains known lies. Flood claims that the claimant threatened to judicially review the report of ICE, when he knows perfectly well that the limitation period for such an action had expired nine months prior to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report being published. Flood also pretends not to know whether or not the Ombudsman’s report was judicially reviewed, despite the fact that the fact that it was not was pointed out to him on 7th August 2015.

Paragraph 59 contains the deliberate lie that a defamatory and malicious communication sent by Flood on 27th July 2015 referenced an “infringing domain name”, and also “any other domain names that incorporated the defendant’s marks.” No such references exist in the letter, and Flood should know as he wrote the bloody thing!

Paragraph 71 contains several known lies, most obviously the lie that the claimant requested snail mail letters to be sent in large font. In reality, the claimant requested electronic copies of letters, and never made any comment regarding snail mail.

Paragraph 101 is the most obvious deliberate lie of all. Sadly, these contempts cannot be specified here as they are proven to be contempts by evidence revealed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in response to a Letter Before Claim.

Paragraph 118 is deliberately deceitful, and is designed to aggravate distress to the claimant. Flood states that the claimant “agreed” to an action which had been the subject of multiple complaints over a six-month period. So, according to Flood, the claimant complains about something in writing for several months, then “agrees” to it verbally, and then goes back to complaining about it again in writing immediately after.

Paragraph 123 is an even more blatant extension of the same contempt. Flood states once again that the claimant “agreed” to an action which was a constant subject of formal complaints, and then tells the blatant lie of a “good relationship” between the claimant and the individual complained of.

It is beyond belief, but all that matters in the end is what the Judge will make of it. The contempts of court will be particularised at length in the Reply to the Defence, which will be filed with the County Court Money Claims Centre in Salford some time before 11th December 2015.

The only fact which can be stated without fear of contradiction is that Matthew Flood, Global General Contemnor of Ignoramus (UK) Ltd, is a sick, vile, nefarious, loathsome deceiver who will invent multiple lies on a legal Statement of Case just to attempt to ensure that the victim of sadistic bullying and abuse by his organisation receives no just compensation for his ordeal.