BIG - Response to the
Winding Up Petition #1

THIS IS THE FIRST PART OF 3 IN RESPONSE TO THE WINDING UP PETITION No 002908.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION COMPANIES COURT

No 002908 OF 1998

IN THE MATTER OF COURTNEY AGENCIES (an association or partnership)

Courtney Agencies is not an association or partnership it is an office service system currently under development. Courtney 's first client is BIG. Should the government within the UK declare that BIG is illegal, then Courtney Agencies would not service BIG within the UK.

COMMENT: The use of the words "association or partnership" we believe is a flagrant misuse of British Law compiled between The Treasury Solicitors, Department of Trade and Industry and the Court which accepted the order.

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986

Neither Courtney Agencies or BIG are insolvent, neither organisation holds any debt and both have met each and every commitment stated.

COMMENT: The use of the insolvency act 1986 we can prove to be a total misuse of British Law by The Treasury Solicitors and The Department of Trade and Industry. Purpose was to convince the Court that they have a case against the given defendants. The Court failed in its duty to ensure that the winding up petition had been delivered giving the defendants of the petition the opportunity to defend. We now believe that the Court willingly participated in collusion to pervert the true direction of British Justice in favour of The Treasury Solicitors and The Department of Trade and Industry against the defendants.

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENT PARTNERSHIP ORDER 1994

Courtney Agencies is not in any form a Partnership within the United Kingdom. Courtney Agencies are sole traders who are working to develop their own business within the United Kingdom.

COMMENT: We find it very difficult to believe that any British Court could have condoned the use of the Partnership Order 1994. Without doubt this shows that the BRITISH HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE under Mr Justice Rimer was prepared to enter into collusion with The Treasury Solicitors and The Department of Trade and Industry against any defence opportunity by the defendants.

BEFORE GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF THE WINDING UP PETITION PRODUCED BY THE TREASURY SOLICITORS AND THE GRANTING OF THE ORDER TO APPOINT AN OFFICIAL RECEIVER AS PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATOR, WE WILL TELL YOU HOW THE TREASURY SOLICITORS OBTAINED THE ORDER. THIS INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED BY THE PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATOR, WHO PERSONALLY FELT EXTREMELY UPSET AT BEING FORCED TO ENFORCE THE ORDER GIVEN BY Mr JUSTICE RIMER.

The Winding Up Petition was never distributed to any of the defendants until Mr Justice Rimer had granted the order in relation to the Petition made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under direction from The Treasury Solicitors. This action apparently took place at 5:15pm on Thursday the 21st day of May 1998 and was stamped on the morning of Friday 22nd of May 1998 after which official receivers started entering defendants homes.

You can clearly see that Mr Justice Rimer, The Treasury Solicitors and the Secretary of State for Trade and lndustry worked in collusion to stop any defence to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's Winding Up Petition.

THE WINDlNG UP PETITION

THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE TREASURY SOLICITORS PETITION WITH OUR INITIAL DEFENCE COMMENTS SHOWN BELOW

I Introduction

1. The association or partnership known as "Business Incentive Games International" or "BIG International" or "BIG" or "B.I.G." (hereinafter referred to as "BIG") commenced business in or around early 1996.

1:- COMMENTS:

Agreed to hereinafter referred to as BIG.

The Petitioners statement is total fabrication BIG never commenced business in or around early 1996 in the United Kingdom and will never commence business in the United Kingdom.

This is deception by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to obtain the Order in relation to the prepared Winding Up Petition knowingly.

The Petitioner is also aware that there is NO association or partnership in existence within the United Kingdom related to BIG. Again deception by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to obtain the Order in relation to the prepared Winding Up Petition knowingly.

2. Your Petitioner seeks a winding up Order in relation to BIG pursuant to section 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("the Act"). This Court has jurisdiction to make such an Order in this case based on one or more of the following grounds, that is to say:

2.1 BIG is an unregistered company within the meaning of section 220 of the ACT in that it is an association and/or

2.2 BIG is an unlawful association or partnership contrary to section 716 of the Companies Act 1985, and/or

2.3 BIG is an insolvent partnership within the meaning of section 220 of the Act as modified by Schedule 3 to the Insolvent Partnership Order 1994 in that it is unable to pay its debts as they fall due and/or otherwise falls within the meaning of "insolvent partnership".

2:- COMMENTS:

2.1 BIG never ever claimed to be a United Kingdom Company therefore BIG cannot be deemed to be insolvent under section 124A of the Insolvency ACT 1986 ("the Act"). The Court holds NO jurisdiction over BIG because BIG is not trading within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

Deception and misleading statement made by The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in relation to the prepared Winding Up Petition knowingly

2.2 BIG never ever claimed to be a United Kingdom association or partnership. The Court holds NO jurisdiction over BIG in relation to an association or partnership under section 716 because BIG is not trading within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom under an association or partnership.

Deception and misleading statement made by The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in relation to the prepared Winding Up Petition knowingly.

2.3 This statement by The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is a totally fabricated lie to mislead the Court within the United Kingdom. BIG has never held any debts within the United Kingdom and certainly isn't an insolvent partnership within the meaning of section 220 of the Act as modified by Schedule 3 to the Insolvent Partnership Order 1994.

3. The grounds on which a winding up Order is sought are that it is expedient in the public interest and/or just and equitable in that:

3.1 the scheme which BIG operates is an unlawful lottery contrary to section 1 of the Lotteries and Amusements 1976 ("the Lotteries Act"). and/or

3.2 the scheme which BIG operates is an unlawful investment business contrary to section 3 of the Financial Act 1986 ("the FSA 1986"), and/or

3.3 the scheme which BIG operates is a multi-level snowball or money circulation scheme which even if not illegal, is inherently undesirable, and/or

3.4 BIG is unable to pay their debts as they fall due

3: - COMMENTS: 3.1. BIG within any period never operated any unlawful lottery scheme or system within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and therefore is not subject to section 1 of the Lotteries and Amusement 1976 ("the Lotteries Act'). This statement by The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is a totally fabricated lie to mislead the Court within the United Kingdom.

The Court was totally deceived into believing that BIG operates within the United Kingdom.

3. 2 BIG doesn't operate any form of unlawful investment business contrary to section 3 of the Financial Services Act 1986 ("the FSA 1986") and/or because BIG has never operated within any period within the jurisdiction of the Court and has never been an investment business.

The Court was totally deceived by the Petitioner into believing that BIG operates within the United Kingdom.

In relation to the Public Interest claim this is an infringement of European Humanitarian Rights related to all British Citizens Individual Rights to belong to any International organisation of their choice to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

If British Citizens allow this to happen to them now then all that their families fought for in two World Wars is wasted, because the freedom which was won by their family members is now taken away by a United Kingdom Court.

3. 3 BIG doesn't operate any form of multi-level snowball or money circulation scheme within the jurisdiction of the Court or within the jurisdiction of Global Justices. BIG manages an internationally supported free lottery and a total redistribution of generated profits from BIG's own finances to all Players Globally.

The Petitioner's statement is total fabrication designed to mislead the United Kingdom Court.

3.4 BIG throughout its entire development has met every single financial commitment on time.

The Petitioner's statement is total fabrication designed to mislead the United Kingdom Court.

II THE BUSINESS OF BIG

4. BIG has carried on its business in England and Wales at some time during the period of 3 years ending with the day on which this petition is presented.

4: - COMMENTS. BIG has never carried on its business in England or Wales at any time during the period of the last 3 years or before.

The Petitioner's statement clearly shows collusion between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, The Treasury Solicitors and the Court presided over by Mr Justice Rimer in the last ten words of statement 4 which are as follows:

"ENDING with the day on which this petition is presented".

These words presume that the order would be granted. The only way that such a presumption could have been made is via collusion to misdirect the truthful direction of British Justice by all three parties.

5 The nature of BIG's business and the principal reason for which BIG was formed was to operate a collective investment scheme and/or lottery.

5: - COMMENTS: BIG is an International humanitarian organisation with a high reputation of service to the humanitarian ideas developed by BIG. BIG never operated any form of collective investment scheme and or lottery within the Untied Kingdom.

The Petitioner's statement is total fabrication designed to mislead the United Kingdom Court and Citizens of the United Kingdom.

6 A principal place of business of BIG is at Swindon Gardens, Harold Hill, Romford, Essex RM3 3RH, within the jurisdiction of this Court. A further principal place of business of BIG is at Kingsworthy Close, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey KTl 3ER, also within the jurisdiction of this Court.

6 COMMENTS: This can only be described as a total legal disgrace sanctioned by a British Court presided over by Mr Justice Rimer. Neither of these addresses have been offices of BIG or used during any time by BIG. The first of these addresses is the home of an elderly lady totally unconnected to BIG in any way and the other address is that of Mr Hesling who is paid to handle paper work received from European Citizens.

7 On 24th March 1997 your Petitioner authorised her officer, Philippa Hahnel, to investigate the affairs of BIG and also the affairs of the association or partnership known as "Courtney Agencies" which purports to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of BIG ("Courtney") and to require both entities to produce to her any documents which she may specify pursuant to section 105 of the FSA 1986.

7 COMMENTS: BIG is an organisation which holds a subsidiary known to be "Courtney Agencies " but this subsidiary never traded within the United Kingdom at any time. The purpose of this subsidiary is to internationally police the accuracy of the Interntional free lottery.

Courtney Agencies within the United Kingdom are sole traders who receive post in relation to the free lottery managed by BIG. From information verbally received this was clearly stated to Philippa Hahnel during her interview with one of the defendants.

If you look at the date in this statement by the Petitioner which is the 24th March 1997, over a year on it can be clearly proven that BIG have met every commitment to British Citizens who freely applied to join the free lottery managed by BIG - with no structure of financial investment development in pursuant to section 105 of the FSA 1986.

8 On 20th March 1998 your Petitioner similarly authorised her officer, Peter Geoffrey Bott ("Mr Bott"), to investigate the affairs of BIG, and on the 24th March 1998 your Petitioner similarly authorised Mr Bott to investigate the affairs of Courtney (including, but not limited to, the affairs of Raymond Patrick Grant ("Mr Grant") and Paul Philip Hesling (" Mr Hesling") as persons connected with Courtney). On 20th March 1998 your Petitioner similarly authorised Mr Bott to investigate the affairs of Mr Lionel Stiles ("Mr Stiles") as a person connected with Courtney, and on 13th May 1998 did the same in relation to Patsy Ann Rowley and Stephen Rowley ("Mrs Rowley" and Mr Rowley" respectively), also persons connected with Courtney.

8 COMMENTS: All but one of the above named defendants are sole traders or own companies which have provided paid for services to BIG's subsidiary "Courtney Agencies" but under no circumstances do they represent "Courtney Agencies" within the United Kingdom, they provide services like any international organisation would obtain globally. Under no circumstances have they broken any United Kingdom Laws. They would have maintained independent records of all services paid for by the subsidiary of BIG known to be "Courtney Agencies".

What the Petitioner is attempting to do is confuse the Court with unrelated defendants. Any normal Judge would have insisted upon hearing all the defendants cases before granting any Order.

In relation to the first named defendant who would have been "Courtney Agencies " appointed and official represented employee within the United Kingdom, he refused to accept the appointment after his interview with the Petitioner's authorised investigator Philippa Hahnel because it was made perfectly clear to him by the investigator that any organisation connected to his name will be investigated and closed down.

To safeguard the reputation of the Free Lottery managed by BIG and continue his fight against the closure of Inner Sanctum he refused any position with either BIG or any of its subsidiaries. (Further details to follow on Mr Grant within the final summary of this action against BIG and or subsidiaries of BIG).

9. From the information and documents so obtained it appears to your Petitioner that it is expedient in the public interest that the association or partnership carried on under the name "Business Incentive Games International" or "BIG International" or "BIG" or "B.I.G." be wound up.

9: COMMENTS: Neither BIG or its subsidiaries operate within the United Kingdom, therefore it is not legally possible within the United Kingdom to provide an order for BIG to be wound up. This is a deliberate attack upon a Humanitarian Organisation which has met all it's commitments Globally by a British Government who wish to deprive their Citizens of the right to free choice upon the international markets. This sad situation is compounded by the collusion of all parties during the development of this petition.

III. The collective investment scheme

10. BIG is and has been since early 1996, engaged in carrying on an investment business in the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 1 of the FSA 1986, operating a collective investment scheme within the meaning of section 75 of the FSA 1986, as more particularly set out below.

10 COMMENTS: To operate an investment business in the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 1 of the FSA 1986 (operating a collective investment scheme within the meaning of section 75 of the FSA 1986), British Citizens would have to invest finance in some form. But absolutely no Citizen Globally invests for return into BIG or any subsidiary or places at risk personal finance into an investment structure. The opposite is true. Finance is provided for Players to develop their income within the opportunity of a free lottery system.

We believe that the Petitioner is using the British Legal System and fear and intimidation against United Kingdom Citizens to take control of the core assets of BIG Internationally. The reasons for this belief will be explained more fully within the summary.

11. The collective investment scheme operated through BIG is carried on from one or both of the permanent places of business referred to in paragraph 6 above and maintained by it or on its behalf in the United Kingdom.

11. COMMENTS: The addresses that have already been explained in comment 6 above this statement is what is known as legal padding which is normally used to convince or impress a Court in relation to accuracy of Petition.

12. Since their formation, Courtney and/or BIG have issued a variety of promotional literature. The promotional literature produced to your Petition's investigating officer comprises the following:

12. COMMENTS: For literature to be promotional it must be designed to advertise. The literature provided by BIG is informational literature provided to all Players of the Free Lottery. Should other individuals request information upon BIG then the same informational literature is sent. BIG never ever sends out promotional literature - it only sends information which is provided to all Players at the individuals personal request.

12.1 Lottery tickets headed "BIG International Free Lottery Ticket" containing information on prizes and how to claim them, and bearing the name and address of Courtney (though not of BIG) ("the Lottery Tickets").

12. 1 COMMENTS: The Lottery tickets are headed "BIG International Free Lottery" and due to the fact that BIG is the management organisation of the Free Lottery this should come as no surprise to the person receiving the ticket.

The petitioners statement is contradictory because it goes on to state that the name of BIG is not placed upon the ticket. What we believe they mean is the address of BIG is not indicated upon the ticket. The ticket numbering procedures is policed by the subsidiary of BIG known to be "Courtney Agencies". The number range which is affected by the Petitioner is numbers starting with 15 (for example numbers starting from 15000001).

These tickets are printed and produced by the subsidiary of BIG then transferred to the posting service appointed and paid for by the subsidiary of BIG in each Nation. This provides the policing structure which stops forgery of Free Lottery tickets and numbers and also prevents any individual from receiving any form of payment from any member of the public internationally (Forgery was attempted in two Nations which was stopped by BIG's subsidiary Courtney Agencies).

12.2. A publicity brochure headed "BIG INTERNATIONAL The World's Most Powerful FREE Lottery System" which contains, inter alia, a " BIG Player Registration Form" and a "Free Ticket and P.R. Order Form", inviting members of the public to invest in Courtney and/or BIG ("the Brochure"). At least 4 versions of the Brochure have been issued.

12. 2 COMMENTS: The statement "BIG INTERNATIONAL The World's Most Powerful FREE Lottery System" is, to the best of our knowledge, totally correct. We know of no other free lottery system meeting the same humanitarian levels or structured to serve all equally.

The brochure is not a publicity tool it is an informational aid produced by BIG to ensure that no person internationally can be corrupted into thinking that they have to pay for tickets into the free lottery.

The remainder of this statement by the Petitioner will be dealt with under independent legal action against the Petitioner and her staff. No brochure is ever sent by BIG without a request for the informational material being received and postage paid for by the individual. In other words the British Government is attempting to stop United Kingdom Citizens from using their Humanitarian Rights to find informational material upon given International organisations. This is an arrogant infringement of Human Rights affecting the individual and enhances the deplorable reputation that the Petitioner's department holds when relating to Human Rights, to the point within which the Petitioners department have deliberately withheld evidence resulting in incarceration of given defendants cases outside this current one against BIG.

12.3 A newsletter to investors headed "BIGNEWS", purporting to contain information about BIG and Courtney, a list of recent lottery draw results, up to date values of investment and recent developments on inter alia, fax-back and other communications services in relation to the lottery, the availability of promotional literature for "Agents" and the structure of "Agents" commissions ("the Newsletter"). At least 11 editions of the Newsletter have been issued. At least one edition contains a "BIG International Agent Agreement" application form. All editions invite members of the public to invest in Courtney and/or BIG.

12. 3 COMMENTS: The use of the words "Purporting", "Investment" and "Investors" in the petitioners statement are total deception on behalf of the Petitioner to mislead and or deceive the United Kingdom's Court into providing or granting the Petitioner's Winding Up Petition via Order of the Court. Private prosecution procedures will be taken against all individuals involved in this deception.

"BIGNEWS" is the official newsletter of BIG and is only supplied to Players or individuals who request it. Again this is not a promotonal publication. It provides informative information about the international developments of BIG and the winning numbers of the free lottery. Other information is provided by the Players of BIG and matters which concern them individually.

The agency agreement of BIG is an individual's or Player's right to share equally in the generated core assets of BIG by developing their own understanding of BIG and BIG's Humanitarian Aims of profit redistribution - all clearly and legally stated within information provided by BIG.

No edition of BIGNEWS invites members of the public to invest in Courtney and or BIG this is total fabrication on behalf of the petitioner.

THIS IS THE FIRST PART OF 3 IN RESPONSE TO THE WINDING UP PETITION No 002908.