English judges are advocates of foul play

Exclusive investigation part 2: UK corruption at the heart of the justice system

Our second sequel to our series entitled “Judges are referees who move the goal posts“ with evidential proof of judicial corruption and fraud by political interference, this article focuses on how English judges are the puppets to the puppet masters. Acting order orders to provide impunity to fellow Tory criminals takes precedence over impartiality, integrity, fairness and law.

Just yesterday, it was reported that Bob Seely, the Tory Isle of Wight MP, told the House of Commons that “the UK’s legal system has become ‘corrupted’ by kleptocrats, criminals, and oligarchs“. Half truths, for it is the Tory kleptocracy who are the main cogs turning the wheels of the UK’s systemic corruption machine, the corrupt lawyers, judges and regulatory authorities that don’t regulate are the drive shafts.

English High Court Judges have been abusing innocent civilians, defrauding them in the name of justice and depriving their victims of their right of equality before the law to assist fellow unscrupulous fraudster lawyers in using the courts to defraud. When they finish defrauding through their process of protracted mental torture, deprival of legal rights and “remedy denial”, they deploy civil restraint orders to conceal their fraud.

The Millinder v Middlesbrough FC case provides the classic illustration as to how a simple proven case gets spun out of all proportion with judicial trickery and deceit designed to suppress evidence and subdue their opposition until all hope is lost.

The judges in this case served no purpose, there was nothing to adjudicate on, their only role was to administer the law, and they couldn’t even do that. Nobody can place trust in the UK’s judges or courts to do justice.

In the Millinder case, we have a prime example of fraud perpetrated by the judges themselves. There are two limbs to the fraud, both originating because he wanted to do something positive and proactive in business by constructing, connecting to the grid and operating a wind turbine to power Middlesbrough Football Club’s Riverside Stadium.

The first limb is the claim against the Club that vested in EW originating from unlawful forfeiture of the lease which was tried and proven which Millinder was defrauded of by the £4.1 million fraud by false representation claim sustained by the corrupt judiciary and the Insolvency Service.

The second is the claim by EEI and then by Millinder for the investment he made in EW and then assigned to EEI on 29th June 2015. Wilful failure to apply the law and by violating Millinder’s right to equaty before the law ensured he was defrauded of millions, remedy was always denied.

The background to the wind turbine project and how it was vandalised by the Club

The connection configuration for the wind turbine was finalised between the Club, the Distribution Network Operator and Millinder, the developer, during the option period, when it was an option, if either party became dissatisfied, to negate without financial commitment. Having that option is the very purpose of the option agreement. The option to lease period was from 15th June 2012 through until 17th June 2013 when the Lease was completed.

The lease was completed on the party’s express understanding of the pre-agreed connection configuration that the Club was to take ownership of it’s substations so that the connection for the turbine could be established.

The project suffered a delay of Force Majeure, just 96-days into the 12-month period free of rent from which Millinder was to “commission” the wind turbine. The Force Majeure provision within the lease suspended any obligation accordingly 23rd December 2014, when Millinder successfully resolved the impasse, which prevented the turbine from lawful operation. After the carry over of 296-days free of rent from which to commission the wind turbine, the first installment of rent in the sum of £15,000 was due on 17th September 2015.

By 4th February 2015, the project obtained full planning permission and was ready to construct. Millinder wanted to call upon the Distribution Network Operator (“DNO”) to implement the connection for the turbine. On 4th February 2015 the DNO provided the agreement to the Club for signing so that the private network that the turbine could connect into could be established in accordance with the pre-agreed terms.

On 7th March 2015 the Club made a ransom demand for rent in the sum of £75,000 and for energy supply in the sum of £181,269.89 when neither were contractually owed. To avoid further unnecessary delay caused by the Club’s procrastination, knowing that no money was owed, on 15th April 2015 Millinder offered to deposit the sum of the Club’s ransom demand into Escrow so that the turbine could be built whilst the impasse was to be resolved by an independent arbitrator. 15-days later, on 30th April 2015, the Club “U-turned” and outright refused to provide the connection in accordance with the terms of the completed DNO Connection Offer, rendering the project entirely useless.

The Club had prevented Millinder from performing on the rights granted by the option agreement, the energy supply agreement and the lease by refusing the connection. Without a connection, the turbine cannot operate.

From 30th April 2015, Force Majeure in the Lease continued to suspend any liability on Millinder, owing to the unforeseen and unreasonable delay caused by the Club themselves in preventing the turbine from being commissioned.

On 25th June 2015, the Club blackmailed Millinder, presenting an unwarranted demand with menaces in the sum of £256,269.89 for rent and energy supply that was not owed, threatening to forfeit the Lease, after refusing the connection, unless Millinder paid the sum of their demand.

Energy supply is conditional – There was no contractual agreement to supply power

After preventing Millinder from performing on the rights granted by refusing the connection, the Club then demanded payment for energy supply, they prevented from being supplied. On the Club’s terms, and on the terms of their supporters, the corrupt, politically controlled judges, the terms of a completed contract matters not.

£181,269.89 of the Club’s blackmail, was invoices for energy supply. Under supervision of the High Court fraudsters and the corrupt Insolvency Service, their first claim, which the Club were contractually prohibited from making, grew then to £541,308.89 of which £466,308.89 was for energy supply and then to £4,111,874.75 of which £4,031,664.80 was also for energy supply.

The energy supply agreement is a conditional contract, subject to Millinder’s “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” and “commissioning” of the wind turbine. In absence of fulfillment of those conditions there was no “Entitlement to agreed output” (agreement by Millinder to supply power) and any “invoicing & payment” was also contractually prohibited. The “Start Date” of the energy supply agreement was the date from which those conditions are satisfied.

The Club, their lawyers and the foul playing judges all knew that they refused the connection, preventing the turbine from supplying the power. They sustained the fraudulent claims anyway to ensure that Millinder was defrauded of the damages claim which was to be paid to the liquidator.

Legal assignment of the investment made by Millinder to Parent Company

On 29th June 2015, after receiving the blackmail by the Club, Millinder assigned the investments he made in the project from Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW”) to Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI”). The legal assignment was served on the Club on 30th June 2015. Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 determines that:

“Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law“

On 19th August 2015, the Club unlawfully forfeited the Lease. Even if the Club did not refuse the connection, preventing Millinder from “constructing, connecting to the grid and operating” the wind turbine, when the entire purpose of the option agreement, lease and energy supply agreement was for Millinder to “construct, connect to the grid and operate” the turbine, they still unlawfully forfeited the Lease based upon their blackmail. No rent was owed and no energy supply was owed.

The case was proven from the outset – No judge necessary

Any ordinary lay person could establish that no rent or energy supply could possibly be owed to the Club on 25th June 2015 after the Club refused the connection. The Club, their corrupt lawyers and the judges they later colluded with had other ideas.

Insolvency was used to defraud Millinder of the damages claim he was entitled to because the Club unlawfully forfeited the Lease

EW was made insolvent as a result of the Club vandalising it’s sole trading interest in operating the wind turbine and deriving revenue from sale of electricity to EDF Energy or other energy companies.

Had the Club not unlawfully forfeited the lease the turbine was to generate circa £500,000 per year for Millinder, net, increasing with the retail price index over the 20-year guaranteed OFGEM Feed in Tariff lifetime.

HMRC had presented a winding up petition against EW for unpaid tax liabilities that would have otherwise been paid were it not for the Club destroying the company and throwing £770,000 of Millinder’s investment and 4-years in development of the project away at the same time.

The Club were solely reliant upon the politically controlled English judges and the corrupt government apparatus of the Insolvency Service to prevent justice being served on them. The court served only that purpose. The referees in the match became the strikers for the Boro.

The hearing of the EW / HMRC winding up petition was adjourned until 19th September 2016 for Millinder to complete a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) with its creditors, of which there was just 3, including HMRC, who were owed less than £40,000 in total. Millinder agreed the basis of the CVA as directed by the Court.

On 19th September 2016, Ulick Staunton, the barrister for the Club appeared, falsely claiming that the Club was a creditor in the sum of £256,269.89, being the sum of their blackmail.

On 12th November 2018, after it was found that the Club did unlawfully forfeit the lease based on their blackmail, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the now Master of the Rolls, head of civil justice for England & Wales, asked Staunton to retract and replace his skeleton, less his admission that he “U-turned” on the fraudulent claims, firstly in the sum of £256,269.89, then £541,308.89, then £619,774.48 and then £4,111,874.75 with Vos citing at paragraph 105 of his judgment that;

It was however the £4.1 million fraudulent claim Millinder asked Vos to try, but following suit with the rest of the judicial terrorists and fraudsters, on 9th February 2019 and at all times thereafter, Vos just covered it up.

The judicial lies and concealment of the blackmail and the fraudulent claims

From 9th January 2017 there is conclusive evidence of pre-meditated conspiracy by the judges, who were working for the Club and their lawyers to conceal their fraud and to reverse Millinder, the victim of their fraud, into the defendant.

On 9th January 2017, the Club’s barrister, Staunton kicked off the lie by stating that the blackmail in the sum of £256,269.89 was only for rent, because he knew that any agreement to supply power was conditional and that Millinder could get no satisfaction of the connection the Club “U-turned” on and refused.

MR STAUNTON: Now, the rent was not paid and there was a demand, forfeiture. Can you turn to p.66? There is the invoice for the rents

They all knew that in absence of fulfillment of the two conditions to the energy supply agreement there was no agreement to supply power by Millinder and any “Invoicing & payment” was contractually prohibited. Staunton lied and stated that the claim for over a quarter of a million was solely for rent when the bulk of it invoices for energy supply.

Moreover, they all knew that Force Majeure absolved any liability on Millinder to pay rent, so Staunton lied about that also.

The white-collar criminal kleptocracy of English judges, the referees who act as strikers, just carry over their fraud and lies. Everything was suppressed and covered up.

Lord Justice Arnold concealed the Club’s obvious fraud whilst aiding and abetting

On 20th December 2016, just 19-days prior to their hearing before Arnold, the Club made a second fraudulent claim, this time in the sum of £541,308.89 of which £466,308.89 was invoices for energy supply.

Mr Justice Richard Arnold, who has since been promoted by the Tory kleptocracy to a Lord Justice of Appeal, wanted to cover that up. A typical trait of systemic corruption, compliance is rewarded, and in England, all at the expense of the taxpayer. They are promoted for misconduct in public office.

It was all about providing impunity to Steve Gibson OBE, a fellow Tory Teesside politician and owner of the Club. They are made above the law, whilst Millinder was punished for acting within the law, whilst prevented from exercising his rights, according to the law.

Page 4 of the statutory demand referred to the assignment that was fraudulently withheld

In tandem with dishonestly withholding the legal assignment that originated the statutory demand (along with 171 pages of additional material information) Bloom of the Club made a knowingly false statement, committing perjury and lying about the assignment he had in his possession in hard copy on 30th June 2015, then on 3rd January 2017 by email and then on 6th January 2017 served with the demand by process server at the Club’s stadium.

At paragraph 2 of his 9th January 2017 ex-parte hearing judgment (screen shot below) Lord Justice Arnold knew that there was an assignment of the investment made by Millinder in EW to EEI, the statutory demand itself told him that, as evidenced above. It was the assignment at the heart of the case.

Lord Justice Arnold committed fraud on 09/01/2017 to conceal the fact that no rent or energy supply was owed

Arnold failed deliberately in his duty to act diligently, knowing that the Club had committed fraud and withheld the assignment that originated the demand. Likewise, he knew that the claim of the demand, cannot be disputed, so he lied about that also.

At paragraph 3 of his judgment, Arnold, who knew that the rent was just £50,000 per annum, added half a million to it to conceal the Club’s fraud:

Outright and deliberate failure of the judges to administer the law

Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 provides a mandatory requirement of the Court to apply set off. 10-days prior to the hearing, Millinder’s lawyers wrote to the Court setting out EW’s claim against the Club exceeding £10 million for unlawful forfeiture of the Lease. The Club however, never had any claim whatsoever against EW.

An account must be taken of what is due from the company and the creditor to each other in respect of their mutual dealings and the sums due from the one must be set off against the sums due from the other.

(3) If there is a balance owed to the creditor then only that balance is provable in the winding up.

(4) If there is a balance owed to the company then that must be paid to the liquidator as part of the assets.

The claim, owed to EW was payable from the outset. The claim was quantified with a high degree of certainty based upon the certified technical reports on the energy assessment for the wind turbine, against OFGEM’s guaranteed 20-year minimum payment for all of the energy generated. The claim could not be disputed.

Likewise, the claim by EEI originated by the assigned investments cannot be disputed, yet on 28th March 2018, Judge Barber repeated the fraud and deprival of Millinder’s right to equality before the law, knowing of the mutual dealings between the Club and the Company.

As a result of their judicial conspiracy to defraud, Millinder was defrauded of the £770,000 assigned investments, plus standard interest accruing at 8& per annum from 30th June 2015, the date notice of the assignment was delivered.

The role of the liquidator and the Insolvency Service

It is the primary duty of a liquidator to collect assets or claims due to the company and to realise those assets for the benefit of creditors. The function of the Insolvency Service is to “deliver economic confidence” to creditors by doing the same and by preventing creditors of insolvent estates from being defrauded. They all did precisely the opposite.

On 1st December 2016, after the corrupt Court failed to administer the mandatory law in set off, paving way for the fraud, the Club submitted their £256,269.89 blackmail as a proof of debt claim against EW. It was that claim which enabled the Club unlawfully obtain interest in the insolvency of EW when it had no position to do so.

The Court, Insolvency Service, Liquidator and Police concealed the Club’s criminal offending

Rule 1.56(1) of the Insolvency Rules 2016, creates a criminal offence in doing what the Club did, but the Insolvency Service and the corrupt Court perverted the course of justice, to prevent justice being served on the criminals so they could continue using the façade of “justice” and “Law” to defraud Millinder;

 It is an offence for a person who does not have a right under these Rules to inspect a relevant document falsely to claim to be a creditor, a member of a company or a contributory of a company with the intention of gaining sight of the document.

(2) A relevant document is one which is on the court file, the bankruptcy file or held by the office-holder or any other person and which a creditor, a member of a company or a contributory of a company has the right to inspect under these Rules.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this rule is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.

After the Club committed the offence and after Hannon, the corrupt Official Receiver of London who was installed by the Tory establishment as fake actor liquidator to assist the Club, on 20th December 2016, after finding that EEI had submitted a claim for £530,000, the Club submitted another fraudulent claim in the sum of £541,308.89 in an attempt to circumvent Millinder’s position as requisite majority creditor.

Hannon and the Insolvency Service broke the law by committing fraud by failing to disclose information, dishonestly refusing to disclose the proofs of debt claims in the sum of £256,269.89 and £541,308.89 contrary to their legal duty to have done so conferred in rule 14.6 of the Insolvency Rules 2016:

“The office-holder must, so long as proofs delivered to the office-holder are in the possession of the office-holder, allow them to be inspected, at all reasonable times on any business day“

It was after all, the corrupt Court’s failure to apply the law in set off contrary to their legal duty to have done so conferred in Rule 14.25(2) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 that paved the way for the Club to commit this blatant and obvious fraud, along with the criminal offence of Rule 1.56 as above.

By 26th January 2017, Hannon and the corrupt Insolvency Service had still refused to disclose the fraudulent proof of debt in the sum of £256,269.89 but were acting dishonestly to conceal the fact that the claim is in that sum, even though Millinder knew that it was that claim that the Club presented to cause the winding up of EW.

The plethora of lies in the email from Campbell below shows the blatant dishonesty and lengths the Insolvency Service is willing to go to assist fraudsters in using their apparatus to defraud creditors. Campbell had the claim in his possession in that sum of £256,269.89, but he lied and stated that the claim was for £255,000 to conceal it, stating the claim had been “amended down”, yet anyone with half an ounce of common sense could determine that £256,269.89 plus £285,039 equals £541,308.89.

Likewise, unless Campbell was part of the conspiracy to defraud, he would not have known that exactly one week later, the Club would claim over £4.1 million using the formal 14.4 (defunct) proof of debt form. (See: The fraudulent c£4.1 million proof of debt claim).

The 6th January 2017 statutory demand by EEI

On 6th January 2017 Millinder served a statutory demand on the Club in the sum of £530,000, constituting some of his investment in the project that was assigned to EEI. Knowing that the Club could not dispute the claim for unlawful forfeiture and that statutory law commits the assignment as being effective, it was envisaged that the Club would pay, leading to them then setting the rest of the claim that vested in EW.

Instead, on 9th January 2017, acting fraudulently, the instructed their barrister to attend an ex-parte (without notice) injunction hearing in the High Court on Fetter Lane, whereby they failed to disclose the fact they refused the connection, failed to disclose that the energy supply agreement is conditional upon Millinder’s satisfaction in full of “entering into a connection agreement” that they refused and whilst they dishonestly withheld 172 pages of witness evidence they were under a legal duty to have disclosed, committing the offence of fraud by failing to disclose information.

It was on 9th January 2017 that the Club’s barrister had admitted that “For the purpose of the energy supply agreement, Force Majeure has effect” therefore admitting that he knew that £181,269.89 of the Club’s blackmail claim was false. It was 24-days later when the Club claimed over £4 million for energy supply after their barrister specifically told them no claims could be established.

Once again, the Insolvency Service and the corrupt court, assisted the offenders by sustaining the fraudulent claim to prevent Millinder from suing the Club, keeping the asset, which was to be paid to the company, beyond reach of creditors.

Millinder was seeking to exercise his rights granted in law under the Acts of Parliament, but the corrupt Court and the Insolvency Service were conspiring to defraud, hoodwinking him of his right to equality before the law to assist the Club in using the façade of justice to defraud.

On 11th November 2017 Millinder applied to the Court to remove the fraudulent proof of debt

Hannon was sustaining the £4.1 million, knowingly false claim to prevent Millinder and fellow creditors from their constitutional right to replace him with a liquidator who was not a criminal working to defraud creditors of their rights in law and the substantial asset that was to be realised pursuant to rule 14.25(4) of the Insolvency Rules 2016.

Hannon had fraudulently abused his position in breach of his fiduciary duty to creditors by sustaining the knowingly false claim and refusing to interfere in the matter when he was asked to request further and better particulars from the Club in light of knowing that over £4 million of the claim was sought pursuant to the conditional energy supply agreement.

Millinder made the application pursuant to rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules 2016:

Exclusion of proof by the court

14.11.—(1) The court may exclude a proof or reduce the amount claimed

(b) on the application of a creditor, a member, a contributory or a bankrupt, if the office-holder declines to interfere in the matter.

The application made by Millinder on 15th November 2017 was to be heard by a High Court Judge, it sought to deal with the fraud during the ex-parte hearing on 9th January 2017, and the four counts of fraud by false representation by the Club and their conspirators, along with the fraud committed by Hannon in abuse of his position as liquidator who owed Millinder and fellow creditors a fiduciary duty to act in their interests when he was acting in the interests only of the fraudsters.

On 21st November 2017, just a day prior to meeting with Hannon at a drinks reception by Radcliffe Chambers, the Club’s barrister’s chambers, Chief Registrar Nicholas Briggs, the corrupt Insolvency Registrar who is personally acquainted with Staunton, the Club’s barrister, “crossed out” Millinder’s request that the application be heard by a High Court Judge and installed a fellow corrupt Insolvency Registrar, Registrar Clive Hugh Jones to assist the offenders in evading justice.

On 21st December 2017, Briggs listed the hearing before Jones and during that hearing, Jones stated this:

THE REGISTRAR: Can I just pause there. It’s never a good move, to start with, to sort of suggest dishonesty because it raises the hurdle. I don’t need to worry about dishonesty at the moment. Maybe in other proceedings — who knows — honesty and dishonesty may come into it, but for my purposes it’s not going to matter because I can’t judge.

When fraud is an issue, dishonesty matters, which is why Millinder requested the application for trial be heard by a High Court Judge. Jones stepped in to pervert the course of justice.

Jones refused to recuse himself from the application he had no jurisdiction to hear, affixing himself to the application, acting without jurisdiction, only to affront the law and sustain the £4.1 million fraudulent claim the court was under a duty to have excluded and removed.

On 5th February 2018 Nugee J found that the Club had unlawfully forfeited the Lease, but then he committed fraud by false representation

After Jones had concealed the blatant fraud and refused to recuse himself, on 30th January 2018 Millinder made an application to a High Court Judge to recuse Jones and to deal with the fraud that Jones concealed. This came before Nugee, another dishonest quisling who was working for the offenders, on 5th February 2018. The highlights from that hearing are cited below from his 5th February 2018 judgment;

Paragraph 3: “…in effect, all Middlesbrough’s fault for failing to enter into an agreement called the connection agreement. The upshot of that was that EW was unable to generate any money, that meant it was neither able to pay rent under the lease, nor to pay what were quite substantial charges ostensibly payable under something called the energy supply agreement“

For clarity “ostensibly”, means “as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so”. The judiciary fraudsters all talk in riddles to obfuscate the truth, no rent was owed and the energy supply agreement was conditional upon Millinder’s satisfaction in full of the connection the Club refused, no satisfaction gained.

Paragraph 4: “on the basis of those matters Middlesbrough demanded payment of money from EW, terminated the Lease for non payment and subsequently appeared as a supporting creditor”

Nugee was referring to the fact that the £256,269.89 blackmail used to unlawfully forfeit, was not owed, he evaded altogether to deal with the £541,308.89 and the c£4.1 million, however, he did address those during the hearing:

Ms Jones: There, there is a recital of what had happened.
Nugee J: £541,000 and then 4. —
Ms Jones: Yes, and then 4.1 million.
Nugee J: Yes, I don’t think I know how those sums are made up.
Ms Jones: No, I’m not sure I do either —

Nugee, following in the footsteps of Jones, who he refused to recuse knowing that Jones, like him, was perverting the course of justice, sought to conceal the £4.1 million fraud by false representation so Jones could sustain it to assist the offenders. He did know that in fact, their claims were just that, made up, criminally fraudulent claims designed to defraud creditors in proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 / Insolvency Rules which criminalises any such activity.

Paragraph 6: It is not disputed that those documents were not put before Mr Justice Arnold. I was also shown a note of the hearing in which Mr Staunton, who appeared for Middlesbrough then as he does for Middlesbrough today, says this:

“There is a definition of force majeure in the lease. There is no other reference to force majeure in the lease.”

That was something he repeated before me, but in fact, there was a provision in the lease at schedule 5, paragraph 6, which provided that: “If either party is prevented for any period of time from performing its obligations under this lease by reason of force majeure, that party shall not be in breach of such obligations for so long as, and to the extent to which such reason shall subsist”

Paragraph 7: “Ms Jones suggested that the non disclosure of the material which Mr Millinder relies on was undoubtedly material”.

Ms Jones referred to in the judgment is Elizabeth Jones QC, a Deputy Chancery High Court Judge of the same court who determined that the non-disclosure of 172 pages of witness evidence that was served with the statutory demand (including the assignment) and the 3 salient contracts making up the entire “Connection Agreement”, was indisputably material.

Nugee had other ideas, his game was of foul play, denying remedy to Millinder whilst rewarding the offenders £10,000 for the privilege of their criminal fraud whilst concealing the rest of it.

Where there’s wrongdoing there must be remedy, but in this case, remedy is always denied, no matter how wrong the wrongdoing.

A summary of the findings by Nugee on 5th February 2018

It was found on 5th February 2018 that the Club did unlawfully forfeit the Lease and that the demand in the sum of £256,269.89 was unwarranted and that therefore no money was owed to the Club.

It was found therefore that Millinder’s claim, vesting in EW, is a substantial asset that was to be paid to the liquidator of EW pursuant to rule 14.25(4) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 and released as a dividend to creditors of which Millinder was requisite majority.

The c£4.1 million fraud by false representation used to stymie the liquidation of EW was entirely false and that the Court had a duty to have removed and excluded the proof of debt claim.

After finding that the claim of the demand is proven Nugee committed fraud by false representation to defraud Millinder of the assigned investments

Paragraph 10: “It is true that one of the documents relied on as not having been disclosed is board minutes of EW dated 29th June 2015, in which there was some discussion of how to react to Middlesbrough’s demand for £255,000, and that that includes a passage which could be a reference to assignment to EEI as follows:

“We agreed to tidy up loose ends on some of the feeds and the 200K that we paid from other accounts of Earth Energy Investments as parent of Empowering MFC, as assigning those investments representing what we put into project. We agreed to separate out what went in as investment to the project so that there are two causes of action that the parent recovering funds invested, and Empowering MFC recovering consequential loss”

Nugee committed fraud by false representation by falsely representing his version of the assignment resolution after finding that it was withheld, because he knew that Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 commits any absolute assignment, of which notice has been given to the debtor, as being effectual in law. He made is corrupted version not absolute so he could defraud Millinder of the sum of the demand and award costs to the fraudsters.

The original terms of the assignment Nugee falsely represented were absolute

“We agreed to tidy up loose ends on some of the fees and the £200k that we paid from other accounts so that Earth Energy Investments, as Parent of Empowering MFC is assigned those investments, representing what we put into project. We agreed to separate out what went in as investment to the project so that there are two causes of action, with the Parent recovering funds invested and Empowering MFC recovering consequential loss”

Had Nugee not committed the fraud that he did, Millinder would have been able to recover at least some of the investment me made in the wind turbine company, they all wanted to ensure he was defrauded of everything and that all remedy was oppressively denied.

On 26th March 2018 Jones disposed of the application pursuant to Rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules whilst sustaining the £4.1 million fraudulent claim.

On 11th April 2018, after winding up EEI for their £25,000 fraudulent liability, Staunton admitted the cross claim extinguished theirs

After admitting on 05/02/2018 that the investments were assigned on 28/03/2018 Staunton attended court in Millinder’s absence to wind up EEI for the £25,000 fraudulently obtained costs they alleged that were by consent, knowing that the assigned investments extinguished their £25,000 by over 30 times.

On 11th April 2018, after winding up EEI for the fraudulent £25,000, Staunton admitted this:

But what was before Judge Barber on 28th March 2018 was Staunton’s conscious and pre-meditated dishonesty (fraud), where he committed fraud by false representation and misrepresented the cross claim assigned investments, stating that there was no assignment and that the cross claim is the claim that vested in EW when he knew of the correct factual circumstances.

On 12th November 2018 Staunton “U-turned” on the claims he admitted could not be established on 09/01/2017

On 12th November 2018, Staunton then “U-turned” on the claims he and the Club made, after first admitting that the claims could not be established on 9th January 2017, but bizarrely, Staunton appeared to re-incarnate the £25,000 fraudulent claim that he had admitted was extinguished by the cross claim assigned investments exactly 7-months prior:

Even after the Club’s own barrister had admitted that the claims were false, that the assigned investments of £770,000 plus standard interest extinguished the £25k by over 30 times, and after Nugee had found that the claim for unlawful forfeiture of the lease was tried and proven, Vos, the now Master of the Rolls, head of civil justice came to the Club’s aid, concealing the proven fraud with his lies that the blackmail was a “quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89” when it was the £4.1 million claim Millinder’s application for trial asked him to remove.

Vos affronted the rule of law that commits the assigned investments as being effectual from 30th June 2015, once again to have defrauded Millinder of over £1.17 million (the assigned investments plus standard interest from the date of the assignment).

In his judgment, knowing that he himself is part of the fraud, Vos then stated this:

“I can say at once that I have been through all the papers in this case in meticulous detail, and I have seen no evidence of any kind for any of the allegations of fraud, conspiracy or misdealing that Mr Millinder has made”.

It is proven beyond doubt that the heads of the judiciary for England and Wales are nothing but two bit foul playing fraudsters who defeat the rule of law and the principles of justice when asked to by the corrupt Tory establishment.

Rather than to have provided remedy for this most obvious, serious and protracted fraud, gross human rights abuse, remedy denial and deprivation to one’s fundamental human right to equality before the law, the Tory political kleptocracy and their corrupt judiciary deployed civil restraint orders against Millinder to conceal their fraud and the criminal property he was defrauded of.

The proven case was certified by successive judges of the same court as Nugee as “totally without merit”, meaning “no more or less than bound to fail” to that the corrupt, politically controlled judges could brand Millinder a “vexatious litigant”, later permanently depriving him of his right of access to justice by concealing their fraud and publicly humiliating him in the process.

The Law Society Gazette, the propaganda machine for the kleptocracy of corrupt lawyers and judges, were very quick to publish their defamatory nonsense to lend credence to the judicial fraud, without first establishing the facts, with their defamatory article entitled; “Incorrigible’ vexatious litigant barred from every court.

How can a proven case be no more or less than bound to fail? Whilst the corrupt judiciary have proven themselves to be foul playing liars and cheats, at least the evidence does not deceive.

Those with responsibility for the justice system have some explaining to do – We the people demand accountability

We asked all the oath breaking purported judges involved, and Dominic Raab MP, the Lord Chancellor, who is sworn into office to “maintain the independence of the judiciary” and “to respect the rule of law” for their comments, which we shall publish.

Please spread this article far and wide. The people have a right to know and this provides the answers.

In England, no business or individual is safe, for one cannot rely on the courts to administer the law and justice impartially.