Ingeus (UK) Ltd “Counsel” Matthew Flood Lies To The High Court

As everyone who has been following the developments on this site already knows, Ingeus (UK) Ltd’s so called “counsel” Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood is an habitual liar and deceiver. He is also a sick, malevolent thug who cares about nothing except inflicting harm and suffering on innocent people.

During 2015, his first year as an Ignoramus employee, he managed to lie belligerently and extensively to myself, mostly fairy stories covering up for the criminal and tortious acts of employees in the Northampton office, who had subjected me to sickening maltreatment and abuse in 2013. He also managed to lie extensively on court documents signed with Statements of Truth, including both a defence and an interlocutory application notice.

In the first three months of 2016, he added to this criminality and deceit by lying to the governmental tax authorities, and also to a corrupt officer of Northamptonshire Police. This officer has now been revealed to have had a pre-existing relationship with Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer, a drug-crazed Ingeus (UK) Ltd junior staff member who, like Flood, has an incredible penchant for deceit, and who, also like Flood, has taken that penchant to the extent of lying to courts and criminal law enforcement officers.

These lies have all been published and proven on previous posts published on this website, and a quick click through the post navigation on the side of the site will allow you to find these posts, and, if you haven’t already done so, acquaint yourself with the previous deceit and contempt of Flood and Dyer.

Now, in 2017, Flood has told more lies, this time to the High Court. He has authored a false witness statement, and signed it with a false Statement of Truth, with the intent of perverting an interlocutory hearing applied for by his employer under totally false pretences.

The statement containing the lies is published in full below, although I have redacted one word. That is the name of an employment adviser who works in the Northampton office. This adviser has committed no wrongdoing, indeed they are one of the best advisers in the office, and the adviser to whom another pathological liar Ross “Dross” Marshall promised me a referral on 18th March 2013. I have therefore resolved to keep their name off this site if it is possible to do so.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-lies-to-high-court

Paragraph 1 is obviously a lie, as it states that the contents of the statement are “true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief”, even though Flood knows that it is riddled with lies and intended to deceive the court, as well as being so grossly offensive and demeaning that it continues the harassment for which Flood is being sued in the first place.

Paragraph 2 is also pure bullshit, as the claim form and affidavit obviously disclose multiple reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Paragraph 5 is a lie. Although Flood was in the public seating on 13th December 2016, I did not meet him, and would have done anything humanly possible to avoid meeting him.

Flood’s character and demeanour can be determined from Paragraph 13, in which he attempts to twist the perfectly normal action of waiting for a Court to return sealed papers before serving them into some purportedly nefarious means of evading a Court order. Given that Rix LJ in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123 did not bar a defence filed (obviously) after a claim form from contributing to a tort of harassment (para. 53), I humbly submit that this unwarranted and nonsensical slur also so contributes.

In Paragraph 14 Flood repeats a lie told by a bent Pinsent Masons LLP lawyer, Gary Terence Wayne Coleman, that a claim issue can be barred by a Limited Civil Restraint Order. This type of deceit can only achieve one objective – to waste the time of a Court whose time is needed by litigants advancing a genuine case in which they believe. Coleman’s own witness statement full of lies will be published in a forthcoming post.

Flood also purports to be a “professional” lawyer, and therefore ought to be capable of reading a CPR Practice Direction.

Paragraph 14 also contains “Pinsent Masons-speak.” All of the witnesses filing statements on behalf of Ingeus (UK) Ltd and their corrupt lawyers are coached, use exactly the same phraseology, and write like Pinsent Masons robots. I have witnessed the same phenomenon in a previous case. It is directly in contravention of CPR 32 PD 18.1, unless the witnesses aver that it is not practicable for them to express themselves in their own words.

Paragraph 15 is deliberately deceitful. It is not remotely arguable that a course of conduct of harassment which completed in 2016 was “investigated” in 2013. In any case, a purported “investigation” by Ingeus (UK) Ltd’s corrupt business partners has no bearing upon this claim. Furthermore, the submission of defamatory content and falsified evidence to pervert the purported “investigation” forms part of the course of conduct of harassment carried out by Ingeus (UK) Ltd and its employees.

There has been no trial of the issue of whether the course of conduct of harassment committed by Ingeus (UK) Ltd and its employees gives rise to a cause of action, nor of whether any of the component parts are capable of contributing to a course of conduct of harassment. Even if there had been such a determination, it would not preclude the possibility of a cause of action being formed by further acts of harassment.

It is arguable whether or not Flood’s letter of 17th July 2015 could contribute to a course of conduct of harassment. It is certainly obnoxious and deceitful, but there is nothing overtly threatening or demeaning. However, it has to be seen in the context of the greater course of conduct, in which the statement that the so-called “services” “provided” to me were “appropriate” is made. Such a statement is grossly offensive, inflammatory, and is obviously capable of causing alarm and distress.

The letter dated 27th July 2017 is a different matter. It deliberately and explicitly makes false allegations that I have committed both a civil tort (defamation) and a civil tort which is also a criminal offence (harassment). It also makes an illegal threat to report a civil matter to criminal law enforcement officers. This letter is far more abusive, demeaning and threatening than any of the three letters in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123, and each of those letters was determined by Rix LJ to be capable of contributing to a course of conduct of harassment (para. 42). It must therefore follow that this letter so contributes.

Paragraphs 20 to 22 are blatantly deceitful and amount to a contempt of court. I have made a detailed analysis of the lies, defamation and character assassination contained in the false statement which Flood submitted to a corrupt police officer involved in the turpitude and the criminality in this previous post.

Paragraph 23 is untrue. Sawyer may not have personally paid the bribes to Anstead and the other bent filth, but as Chief Executive it is not possible that he was not involved in the criminality or the deceit. He will have personally ordered Flood to lie to the police, he will personally have provided the funds which were paid to the officers involved in the misfeasance, and he will have authorised or ordered Flood to coerce Dyer into lying to the police, either through bribery, threat, or both.

In any case, Sawyer is not the defendant, Ingeus (UK) Ltd is. It matters not whether Sawyer was personally involved in the wrongdoing, but it would be a strange Chief Executive indeed who did not demand to kept informed when an illegal persecution of this magnitude was taking place.

Paragraph 24 is nonsensical. An analysis of an astrological birth chart is not an excuse for any form of criminal or tortious activity. Neither is “someone told me to do it, guv, honest” a mitigation. If you purport to be of sound mind, you are responsible for the acts you commit, including those which are criminal and/or tortious. All the involvement of another agitator in the attack would do is reinforce the liability of Ingeus (UK) Ltd.

This is one of Flood’s typical behaviours. Every time he commits an illegal act, he always blames someone else and tells the lie that they told him to do it. He did exactly the same thing with his lies to the tax authorities. It is a shame no-one tells him to shove his head in the gas oven after sealing the room and turning on the gas. Of course, it doesn’t even matter if some other piece of scum in the Ingeus (UK) Ltd office did tell him to commit these acts. He is still supposed to be a grown adult with enough discernment to know when not to act like a moron.

In any case, what the hell do “threats made to female probation officers on staff” (whatever that means) have to do with a case where there are no female probation officers, no probation officers of any kind, and no threats, other than those made by Flood’s own detestable self?

It is hardly surprising that Flood and his scumbag employers are in “agreement” with Ross “Dross” Marshall’s statement. Firstly, Ross “Dross” Marshall is exactly the type of sick, depraved, malevolent thug which Ingeus (UK) Ltd management is seeking to promote to responsible roles. It is even possible that Marshall was promoted out of the Northampton office as a “thank you” for bullying, abusing and maltreating me, and forcing me off the Work Programme. Secondly, Marshall’s “statement” is written in Pinsent Masons-speak, and was written by the same bent lawyers who dictated this drivel to Flood. Marshall’s lies and contempts of court will be published in a forthcoming post.

The most blatant and obvious lie of all is contained in paragraph 26. This lie amounts to a contempt of court. Flood has stated “At paragraph 61 of his Affidavit dated 18 April 2017, the claimant confirmed that he “was forced to invent a fake “business” in order to sign off the work programme provided by the Fifth Defendant.” In reality, the text of Paragraph 61 of my affidavit dated 18th April 2017 reads “The first paragraph is a blatant lie. Flood was aware, and has always been aware, that none of the statements on the www.ignoramus-abuse.org website have ever been “untrue”, “defamatory” or “intimidating.”

There is nothing in Paragraph 61 which even references businesses, fake or otherwise, or signing off from the Work Programme. The paragraph is in a section which is referring to entirely different matters, those being the threatening and harassing nature of Flood’s communication dated 27th July 2015.

ingeus-uk-ltd-matthew-flood-proof-of-deceit

Flood’s malicious false report to the government that I had defrauded the tax authorities came in February 2016, at exactly the same time as he lied to the police, and only four months after he committed outrageous contempt of court on a county court defence. He then committed further and even more outrageous contempt by repeating the lie that I had defrauded the tax office on an interlocutory application in the county court.

It is not remotely arguable or possible that Flood had any genuine belief that I had defrauded the Revenue Service. His false report was a malicious attack on an innocent opposing litigant whom he wanted to completely destroy, even to the extent of inflicting a totally unjust criminal record on that litigant.

In Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17, the only extant authority I have been able to find arising from the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 and similar causes of action, both the Court of Appeal and the Lords found in favour of the claimant even though they believed that the defendant was “genuine but misguided.” It must therefore follow that a case where the harasser is actuated solely by malice and a desire to harm establishes the tort to an even greater extent.

Furthermore, in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123, Rix LJ determined that court papers were capable of contributing to a course of conduct of harassment (para. 53). Therefore, Flood’s repetition of the deceit on a court document signed with a Statement of Truth further establishes the continuation of his course of conduct of harassment.

The incidents involving Rimmer, “Gerome” and Donlevy are dealt with in detail elsewhere on this site. I cannot repeat the contentions here as this post is already extremely long. As for the complaints, it is true that Ross “Dross” Marshall dealt with the complaint in March 2013 to my satisfaction. However, he deceived me and later reneged on his promise to implement the agreed resolution. Had he kept his promise to refer me to “Mrs Y” and provide me with the second stage of year one of the Work Programme, it is extremely unlikely that there would have been any further difficulty. If you deal with complaint No 1, you don’t get any of the others.

The complaint regarding “Depravid Bully Boy” Bishton was “resolved” by Bishton refusing me access to the complaints process and then ignoring all communications. No-one but a moron would consider that to be resolving a complaint “to my satisfaction.” It is regrettable that Flood continues to be economical with the truth even when the evidence explicitly disproves everything he says.

The statement that Ingeus (UK) Ltd violated the Data Protection Act 1998 with an intent to harass is the truth. The “organisation” illegally obtained my private cell phone number from a third party and used it to cause repeated nuisance. It also sent unsolicited email (“spam”) which the Office of the Information Commissioner confirmed was illegal. Whether this conduct crosses the line from ‘regrettable’ to ‘oppressive and unacceptable’ is probably arguable, although I would argue that any harassment which is illegal is unacceptable. No other position exists unless you accept the absurdity that illegality is acceptable.

I would also argue that the key point in this issue is that Ingeus (UK) Ltd was sent the relevant statutory notice, and decided to still keep sending the unlawful communications. Even though the communications themselves were just routine drivel and not malicious, I would argue that continuing to annoy someone after a) a statutory notice has been sent, and b) the conduct has become illegal, is oppressive.

It is also significant that Ross “Dross” Marshall, the thug who was responsible for forcing me off the Work Programme in the first place, now appears to have taken personal responsibility for these illegal acts. I was not aware of his involvement in this specific unlawfulness until he personally admitted it. Some thugs are thick as well as nasty, aren’t they, Dross?

The rest of Paragraph 31 reads like an advertising brochure and does nothing to address the allegations of harassment other than offer a blanket denial. It is also completely untrue and grossly offensive. Flood is a “bullshit machine” whose lies are deliberately made to be as virulent and sickening as possible. The only intent is to cause the highest possible degree of harm to the victim.

What happens with Flood now remains to be seen. There is still a possibility that I will be applying for leave to bring Part 81 proceedings for contempt of court, as I have already threatened to do with Dyer. As there is now a third contemnor who is telling extremely dangerous lies in another different but related claim, it is highly probable that I will be making a Part 81 application with three respondents. There is a lot more water, or in Flood’s case poisoned urine, to flow under the bridge yet.