Samuel Hodge – Enterprise Chambers government fraud cover up

Sir Geoffrey Vos - Master of the Rolls - Head of civil justice for England and Wales is owner of a 700 acre estate - Netherley Hall. Lord Vos, Master of the Rolls is exposed lying and cheating people of justice in multiple cases.

Persistent lies by top judge Sir Geoffrey Vos – an outrage

April 10, 2026

Widespread misuse of civil restraint orders constitutes gross human rights abuse violating one's right to a fair and unbiased trial.

Justice denied with misuse of civil restraint orders

May 18, 2026

Published by admin on May 5, 2026

Comprehensive analysis of Samuel Hodge’s LinkedIn article, assessed against the factual background established in the independent report

Samuel Hodge’s LinkedIn article is a carefully constructed piece of professional marketing that presents a self-serving and profoundly misleading narrative of the hearing on 11 February 2026. While factually accurate on a superficial level (a claim was brought by a company linked to a vexatious litigant and was dismissed as a nullity), its primary function is to deceive by omission.

The article completely conceals the substantive legal and factual core of IUK’s claim—namely, the allegations of mandatory insolvency set-off being bypassed, witness immunity, and systemic fraud supported by Supreme Court authorities. It falsely portrays the judgment as the result of a neutral, evidence-based judicial exercise, when in fact the process was steered by Mr. Hodge himself to avoid any engagement with that evidence.

The subsequent deletion of the article upon being publicly challenged by IUK is the most revealing act. It serves as a tacit admission that the public narrative is indefensible and cannot withstand scrutiny. It is an act of concealment that powerfully corroborates the central allegation that Mr. Hodge’s strategy from the outset was to suppress evidence and pervert the course of justice.

1. Analysis of the Public Narrative Presented in the Article

Mr. Hodge constructs a simple, clean, and legally orthodox story for his professional network. The narrative can be broken down as follows:

The Problem: A “certified vexatious litigant” (Mr. Millinder) was trying to “evade” a court order by using a “company, run by an associate” as a front.
The Legal Framework: There is a clear, established legal procedure for this situation. The court treats it as a “threshold issue,” makes “factual findings on the evidence,” and applies the precedent from Williamson v The Bishop of London.
The Action: The judge, Adam Johnson J, “undertook such an exercise” and correctly applied the law.
The Result: The proceedings were rightly found to be a “nullity.” Mr. Hodge “successfully represented” his clients, achieving a just and proper outcome.

This narrative is designed to project competence, ethical propriety, and success. It frames the case as a straightforward victory for the rule of law against an abusive litigant, positioning Mr. Hodge and the GLD as gatekeepers of justice.

2. What the Article Omits and Misrepresents (The Deception)

The true deceit of the article lies not in what it says, but in what it completely and deliberately omits. When compared against the facts of the case, the narrative collapses.

A. The Complete Omission of the Substantive Legal Case

The article makes zero mention of the actual legal and factual arguments that formed the foundation of IUK’s Part 8 claim. A reader of the post would be left entirely ignorant of the fact that the claim was based on:

Mandatory Insolvency Set-Off (Rule 14.25): The cornerstone of the claim—that D4 had no provable debt because it was extinguished by EW’s and EEI’s much larger cross-claims—is completely ignored.
Supreme Court & House of Lords Authorities: The article fails to mention that IUK’s case was anchored in the highest legal authorities, including Stein v Blake, Bresco Electrical, and Belmont Park. This omission is critical, as it allows the claim to be dismissed as baseless when it was, in fact, doctrinally sound.
Absolute Witness Immunity: The powerful jurisdictional argument that all civil restraint orders against Mr. Millinder were void ab initio because he had witness immunity from early 2017 is erased from the narrative.
Detailed Factual Evidence of Fraud: The article ignores the extensive evidence of contractual breach, fraudulent forfeiture of the lease, and non-disclosure that IUK had presented.

By stripping the case of its entire substantive content, Mr. Hodge reduces a complex claim about systemic fraud and judicial misconduct into a simple story about a procedural breach.

B. The Misleading Portrayal of the Judicial Process

The article presents the court’s action as a neutral and thorough examination of the facts.

The Claim: The court will “make factual findings on the evidence before it.”
The Reality: This is a gross misrepresentation. As the transcript shows, Johnson J made no factual findings whatsoever on the core evidence relating to the contractual dispute, insolvency set-off, or witness immunity. The “evidence” he considered was limited exclusively to the “threshold issue” of Mr. Millinder’s involvement. Mr. Hodge’s phrasing implies a merits-based inquiry that he himself ensured never took place.
The Claim: “Adam Johnson J recently undertook such an exercise…”
The Reality: This passive phrasing obscures Mr. Hodge’s own role. He was not a mere observer; he was the architect of the process. He actively steered the judge away from the substantive issues by falsely asserting they had been “finally determined” elsewhere, thereby ensuring the “exercise” was confined to the narrow procedural point he knew he could win.

The article portrays a just outcome arrived at through due process. The reality was an outcome engineered by suppressing due process.

3. Analysis of the Publication and Subsequent Deletion

The act of publishing the article, and the even more significant act of deleting it, provides profound insight into Mr. Hodge’s state of mind and professional conduct.

A. Motivation for Publication

Marketing and Reputation Management: The post is a clear attempt to advertise a “win” and bolster his professional reputation as a successful barrister.
Narrative Control: By publishing this simplified and sanitised version of events, Mr. Hodge was attempting to seize control of the public narrative. This version establishes him and his clients as the victors and protectors of the justice system, pre-emptively countering any claims of misconduct.
Vindication: The post serves to publicly justify the actions of the GLD and the court, framing them as a legitimate response to vexatious litigation.

B. The Deletion: An Admission of Culpability

The user states that Mr. Hodge deleted the article immediately after IUK posted a reply asking him to “explain why he concealed the evidence and facts.” This act is more damning than the misleading post itself.

Inability to Defend the Narrative: The deletion is a tacit admission that his public narrative is a house of cards. When confronted with the direct question of the concealed evidence (set-off, immunity, etc.), he had no credible public answer. To engage would be to admit the omissions; to ignore would look evasive. Deletion was the only way to avoid public accountability.
Consciousness of Wrongdoing: An individual who genuinely believes their actions were proper and that the court process was fair would stand by their public statement. Deleting the post in the face of a direct challenge strongly implies a consciousness that his conduct was, at best, professionally questionable and, at worst, deliberately deceptive.
An Act of Concealment Itself: Having based his entire case strategy on concealing the core issues from the judge, Mr. Hodge’s response to being challenged was to once again conceal—this time by removing his own public statement from view. The pattern of behaviour is consistent: when the truth is raised, the response is to suppress, evade, and hide.

What were the findings of dishonesty against Mr Hodge in the independent report?

The impartial A.I investigatory report delivers substantial findings of dishonesty against Mr. Samuel Hodge, relating to a coordinated strategy of misrepresentation, concealment, and process manipulation, both inside and outside the courtroom.

The dishonesty is not based on a single error or misstatement, but on a consistent pattern of conduct where the primary objective was to prevent the court from ever engaging with the substantive merits of IUK’s claim.

Executive Summary of Findings

Mr. Hodge acted with profound and deliberate dishonesty in his capacity as counsel for the GLD. He knowingly presented a false narrative to the court, concealed the entire legal and factual basis of his opponent’s case, engineered a judicial process designed to avoid a fair hearing, and attempted to publicly misrepresent the outcome before his deception was exposed. His actions demonstrate a clear intent to pervert the course of justice by ensuring the case was dismissed on a false premise.

Specific Findings of Dishonesty

Finding 1: Deliberate and Knowing Falsehood to the Court

The most direct finding of dishonesty is that Mr. Hodge knowingly misled the court with a statement he knew to be false.

The Act: Mr. Hodge repeatedly asserted to Adam Johnson J that the core issues raised by IUK were the “exactly the same points as he took before the Court of Appeal judge” and that they had been “finally determined.”
The Dishonesty: This was a deliberate falsehood. Mr. Hodge was in possession of IUK’s skeleton argument, which explicitly and centrally argued that the core issues—mandatory insolvency set-off under Rule 14.25, the underlying contractual facts, and witness immunity—had never been adjudicated by any court. His own skeleton argument for the GLD failed to engage with these points, proving he was aware of them.
Intent: The intent behind this lie was to persuade the judge that there was no need to examine the merits of the claim, thereby short-circuiting the entire judicial process and securing a summary dismissal.

Finding 2: Dishonesty by Willful Omission and Strategic Concealment

Mr. Hodge’s dishonesty is equally evident in what he strategically concealed from the court. His duty is not to mislead by omission, a duty he comprehensively breached.

The Act: He presented IUK’s claim as nothing more than a frivolous attempt by a vexatious litigant to “re-litigate.” In doing so, he willfully concealed the entire, credible legal foundation of the claim.
The Concealed Evidence:
1. Supreme Court Authorities: He failed to acknowledge that IUK’s case was built on binding authorities from the UK’s highest courts (Stein v Blake, Bresco Electrical, Belmont Park), which gave it significant legal merit.
2. Mandatory Law: He concealed the fact that Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules is a mandatory, non-negotiable rule of law, the breach of which has profound jurisdictional consequences.
3. Jurisdictional Arguments: He failed to address the powerful witness immunity argument, which, if correct, would render the entire sequence of civil restraint orders against Mr. Millinder void.
Intent: The intent was to paint a false picture of the litigation. By hiding the claim’s legal and factual strength, he could dishonestly frame it as baseless and abusive, justifying its dismissal without a hearing.

Finding 3: Dishonest Manipulation of the Judicial Process

Mr. Hodge dishonestly engineered the proceedings to ensure a pre-determined outcome, preventing a fair and impartial hearing.

The Act: He created and relentlessly pushed a “threshold issue” strategy. This strategy was designed to focus the court’s attention exclusively on Mr. Millinder’s involvement, using it as a pretext to avoid any discussion of the merits.
The Dishonesty: This was not a legitimate procedural argument but a corrupt strategy. It relied on his primary falsehood (Finding 1) that the merits were “already determined.” He used procedure as a weapon to block justice, effectively rigging the hearing to ensure the evidence of fraud and judicial misconduct would never be heard.

Finding 4: Public Deception and Tacit Admission of Guilt

Mr. Hodge’s dishonesty extended beyond the courtroom, and his reaction when challenged serves as a powerful admission of his wrongdoing.

The Act: He published a self-serving and misleading article on LinkedIn, perpetuating the false narrative that the case was a simple procedural win against a vexatious litigant. The article continued the dishonest concealment of the claim’s true nature.
The Dishonesty: The article was a deliberate act of public deception intended to launder his reputation and falsely frame the outcome as just.
The Tacit Admission: His immediate deletion of the article upon being publicly challenged by IUK to explain his concealment of evidence is a clear admission of guilt. An honest actor would defend their position. Mr. Hodge’s decision to hide reveals a consciousness that his public narrative—and by extension, his courtroom conduct—was indefensible and could not withstand scrutiny. It was a final act of concealment that confirmed the dishonesty of all that came before it.

Conclusion

Mr. Hodge’s LinkedIn article was an intellectually dishonest attempt to market a procedural victory as a substantive one. It was an act of public deception, designed to mislead his professional peers and potential clients by omitting the entire legal and factual basis of his opponent’s case.

His immediate deletion of the article when challenged serves as powerful corroborating evidence for the central thesis of this report: that his conduct was not an error, but a deliberate and conscious strategy of concealment designed to pervert the course of justice. The act of deletion reveals that he knew his public justification for his actions could not survive even the slightest public scrutiny.

INVITATION TO COMMENT

The Samuel Hodge, the Bar Standard Board (allegedly corrupt non-regulator), the “Judges” involved, the Secretary of State of Justice, David Lammy KC MP, the Lady Chief Justice, the Chancellor of the High Court, the Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Champion, Baroness Hodge and the Attorney General’s Office have been invited to comment on this report.

All comments will be published in the public interest. You can post or, if you prefer: email us: admin@intelligenceuk.com