EXCLUSIVE: The greatest judicial scandal in England’s history

The Private Sector Participants

Middlesbrough Football Club

• Directors: Neil Bausor (CEO), Steve Gibson (Chairman)
• Charges: Fraud, blackmail, perjury, conspiracy to defraud

PARTNERS IN CRIME? Left: Steve Gibson OBE – Chairman of Middlesbrough FC. Right: The former senior partner of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP Jeremy Robin Bloom – AKA Robin Bloom.

Jeremy Robin Bloom – Solicitor (30 years’ experience):

• Signed witness statement for MFC (8 January 2017)
• Withheld 172 pages from Arnold J (9 January 2017) 
• Lied about assignment notice
• Charges: Fraud by failing to disclose; perjury; conspiracy to defraud

Ulick Staunton – Barrister, Radcliffe Chambers:

• Appeared for MFC at ex parte hearing (9 January 2017)
• Lied to Arnold J: “no further mention of force majeure in lease”
• Withheld crucial evidence
• Hosted/attended drinks with Briggs and Hannon (22 Nov 2017)
• Charges:Fraud on the court; perjury; conspiracy to pervert

Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP – Solicitors for MFC:

• Facilitated fraud on court
• Failed to correct Staunton’s lies
• Concealed evidence
• Liability: Firm liable for solicitors’ fraud and the new offence of “failure to prevent fraud” 

THE COVER-UP: HOW POLICE REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE

Cleveland Police: “We Investigated and Found Nothing”

On 9 January 2017, Millinder reported MFC’s fraud to Cleveland Police (MFC’s stadium is in Cleveland).

He provided:

• The contracts (proving no money was due)
• The demand letter (proving blackmail)
• The forfeiture notice (proving fraudulent forfeiture)
• The connection agreements (proving MFC refused connection)

Cleveland Police refused to investigate.

After Millinder’s repeated complaints, they claimed to have “investigated” and found “no evidence of fraud.”

This is impossible. The evidence is documentary. The contracts are clear. No investigation is required – just reading.

Police persistently covered up and turned their backs on Mr Millinder

Police persistently covered up and turned their backs on Mr Millinder

Northumbria Police: The Same Script

From 20 March 2017 onwards, Millinder reported the fraud to Northumbria Police.

Same evidence. Same result: “No crime committed.”

The forensic report concludes:

“Both police forces concealed the crucial evidence to prevent justice being served on the offenders. This is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The police are part of the conspiracy.”

The Pattern: Institutional Protection for the Fraudsters

What’s remarkable is the consistency:

Every institution, at every level, protected the fraudsters and punished the victim.

This is not coincidence. This is coordination.

Exactly a day before Registrar Jones was installed to cover up the £4.1 million fraud – DS Peter Morgan terminated the ‘investigation’ wishing Mr Millinder luck at the hearing tomorrow. Revealing?

THE HUMAN COST: ONE MAN’S FIGHT AGAINST THE SYSTEM

Millinder’s Losses

Financial:

• £10+ million: Loss of wind turbine project (feed-in tariff income)
• £700,000: Wasted investment (turbine, surveys, legal fees)
• £530,000: EEI’s claim (never recovered due to fraudulent winding up)
• £44,536.84: Costs order by Jones (void but caused distress)
• Total: £11,274,536.84 +

Personal:

• 8 years fighting the conspiracy (2017-2025)
• Criminal prosecution for harassment (while immune as witness and in absence of crime known to law)
• Extended Civil Restraint Order (barred from civil courts)
• All Proceedings Order (barred from all courts)
• Reputation destroyed (labeled “vexatious litigant”)
• Health impacts (stress, anxiety)

“I Had No Choice But to Fight”

In his witness statement dated 17 July 2025, Millinder writes:

“If Jones can evade criminal prosecution for doing non-judicial acts without jurisdiction in fraudulent abuse of position, then why was I, the criminal prosecutor, prosecuted for the offence of harassment when I was absolutely immune from suit and I was pursuing the offenders exclusively for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime?”

He continues:

“My privilege of absolute immunity from suit is in relation to every civil order, and even were there any jurisdiction to have made such orders (which there never was), they are still automatically void from the outset, for no judge has jurisdiction to defeat the immunity of a witness, nor to have concealed the evidence and facts that witness gave.”

The forensic report concludes:

“Millinder has been subjected to a level of persecution normally associated with authoritarian regimes, not democracies governed by the rule of law. He has been criminally prosecuted, civilly restrained, financially ruined, and reputationally destroyed – all for the ‘crime’ of exposing judicial corruption.”

HAPPIER TIMES: Empowering Wind chief executive Paul Millinder, (left) and Middlesbrough FC chief executive Neil Bausor launching the renewable energy scheme in 2013

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR BRITAIN

The Rule of Law is Dead

Legal scholars reviewing the forensic report are unanimous: if these findings are proven in court, the implications are catastrophic.

“This case represents the complete breakdown of the rule of law in England. The fundamental principle – that everyone, including judges, is equal before the law – has been destroyed. We now have a two-tier system: immunity for the powerful, persecution for victims. This is not a democracy. This is tyranny.“

Former Lord Justice of Appeal

“I have practiced law for 40 years. I have never seen anything like this. The systematic nature of the conspiracy, the number of judges involved, the deliberate concealment of evidence – it beggars belief. If true, every one of these judges should be removed from office and prosecuted.“

The Precedent: No Creditor is Safe

The implications for insolvency law are particularly severe.

If Official Receivers can:

• Accept fraudulent proofs without consequence
• Refuse to apply mandatory set-off (Rule 14.25)
• Conspire with creditors to defraud others
• Face no prosecution when exposed

Then:

• Every insolvency in England is at risk
• Creditors have no protection
• The Insolvency Rules 2016 are worthless
• Billions of pounds are at stake

“Rule 14.25 is mandatory. It’s not discretionary. The word is ‘must,’ not ‘may.’ If an Official Receiver can simply ignore it, and judges can refuse to enforce it, then the entire insolvency regime has collapsed. No creditor is safe.”

The Precedent: Ex Parte Fraud is Rewarded

The implications for ex parte procedure are equally dire.

If parties can:

• Withhold 172 pages of evidence from ex parte hearings
• Lie to judges (“no further mention of force majeure”)
• Obtain injunctions by fraud
• Have costs awarded to them when fraud is exposed

Then:

• Ex parte procedure is a weapon for fraudsters
• The duty of “full and frank disclosure” is meaningless
• Victims have no remedy
• Any litigant can be destroyed by ex parte fraud

“The duty of full and frank disclosure exists because the other side isn’t there to correct you. If you can breach that duty, obtain an injunction, and then keep it even when the fraud is exposed, the system is broken. No one will trust ex parte applications again.”

The Precedent: Witnesses Can Be Punished

The implications for witness immunity are the most dangerous.

If witnesses can:

• Give evidence exposing fraud/corruption
• Be punished for giving that evidence (costs orders, restraint orders, prosecution)
• Have their immunity ignored by courts

Then:

• No witness is safe
• Whistleblowers will be silenced
• Fraud and corruption will never be exposed
• The administration of justice (which depends on witnesses) collapses

“Witness immunity is absolute. It has to be. If witnesses fear punishment for their evidence, they won’t give evidence. Trials collapse. Justice fails. This case shows the judiciary is willing to destroy that immunity to protect itself. That’s terrifying.”

THE RESPONSE: DEAFENING SILENCE

The Judiciary: No Comment

This newspaper contacted:

• The Judicial Office(representing all judges)
• The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office(handles complaints against judges)
• The Lord Chief Justice’s Office

All declined to comment, citing “ongoing proceedings.”

We asked specifically:

1. Is it correct that judicial immunity does NOT protect judges from criminal prosecution for corruption? (per Sirros v Moore)
2. Is Rule 14.25 IR 2016 mandatory or discretionary?
3. Can a judge make a costs order against a witness for evidence given?

No answers were provided.

Middlesbrough FC: “No Wrongdoing”

A spokesperson for Middlesbrough Football Club stated:

“Middlesbrough FC has acted entirely properly and in accordance with its contractual rights at all times. All allegations of fraud or wrongdoing are categorically denied. The club has been vindicated in every court hearing to date.”

When asked about the 172 pages withheld from the 9 January 2017 hearing, the spokesperson said:

“We do not accept that any material information was withheld. Our legal team complied fully with all disclosure obligations.”

This directly contradicts Mr Justice Nugee’s finding on 5 February 2018 that documents “were not put before Mr Justice Arnold.”

How Official Receivers Anthony Hannon and Justin Dionne Systematically Deceived Courts, Creditors, and the Public

PART 1: THE CORE LIE – “NO ADJUDICATION REQUIRED”

1. HANNON’S FALSE STATEMENT TO THE COURT

From Hannon’s First Report dated 15 December 2017 (referenced in forensic analysis):

“There are no assets in the case to be distributed. Therefore, it will be both premature and pointless to undertake any work in relation to the payment of a dividend and as office holder I report to the court that at no time have I made any adjudication challengeable under rule 14.8.“

1. WHY THIS IS A LIE

The Truth:

Hannon made THREE decisions on Middlesbrough FC’s proofs of debt:

1. 1 December 2016:Accepted proof for £256,269.89
2. 20 December 2016:Accepted proof for £541,308.81
3. 2 February 2017:Accepted proof for £4,111,874.75

These were “adjudications” – decisions to admit proofs.

Re Paragon Offshore plc [2021] EWHC 2275 (Ch), paragraph 33:

“Rule 14.11 provides the court with the jurisdiction to exclude a proof or to reduce the amount claimed therein where the court is satisfied it has been improperly admitted by an office holder So, in order for rule 14.11 to be engaged, there must be a proof which has been submitted and upon which a determination has been made“

Hannon made THREE determinations. All three admitted MFC’s proofs.

Therefore, Hannon’s statement “at no time have I made any adjudication” is FALSE.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THE LIE

By claiming he made “no adjudication,” Hannon sought to:

1. Block EEI’s Rule 14.11 application
   • If no adjudication was made, Rule 14.11 doesn’t apply
   • EEI couldn’t challenge the proofs
   • MFC’s fraudulent £4.1m proof would stand
2. Avoid scrutiny of his decisions
   • If he admitted he “accepted” the proofs, courts would ask: “Why?”
   • He would have to explain why he didn’t set off (Rule 14.25)
   • His fraud would be exposed
3. Conceal the mandatory set-off duty
   • By claiming “no adjudication,” he avoided discussing Rule 14.25
   • Rule 14.25 applies when proofs are admitted
   • If he never “admitted” them, he never had to set off

PART 2: THE VOTING LIE – “MARKED OBJECTED TO”

1. HANNON’S CLAIM

From the 21 December 2017 transcript (page 92-93):

MR MILLINDER: “It was marked, it was marked … Mr Hannon marked it ‘objected to’ was it around September time this year? September?” THE REGISTRAR: “All right.” MR MILLINDER: “Or was it later than that, Mr Hannon?“

From Hannon’s First Report, paragraph 13:

“I marked the proof ‘objected to’ for voting purposes on two occasions when Mr Millinder requisitioned meetings to remove me as liquidator.“

1. WHY THIS IS A LIE (OR AT BEST, FRAUDULENT EVASION)

The Truth:

1. Hannon ACCEPTED the proofs for voting purposes BEFORE marking them “objected to”

Timeline:

• 1 Dec 2016:Accepted £256,269.89 proof (no objection marked)
• 20 Dec 2016:Accepted £541,308.81 proof (no objection marked)
• 2 Feb 2017:Accepted £4,111,874.75 proof (no objection marked)
• January – March 2017:Millinder requested meetings to remove Hannon
• Hannon’s response:“You’re minority creditor. MFC has £4.1m, you have £770k. No meeting.”
• September 2017 (approximately):Hannon marked proofs “objected to”

The damage was already done. By accepting the proofs initially WITHOUT marking them “objected to,” Hannon:

• Made MFC the “majority creditor”
• Blocked Millinder from requisitioning meetings
• Prevented his own removal as liquidator

2. “Objected to” is NOT the same as “rejected”

Rule 14.7 IR 2016 – Decision on proof:

“(1) The office-holder may admit or reject a proof in whole or in part. (2) If the office-holder rejects a proof in whole or in part the office-holder must deliver a notice of the decision to the creditor...”

Hannon had THREE options:

• Admitthe proof (creditor can vote and receive dividends)
• Rejectthe proof (creditor cannot vote or receive dividends)
• Mark “objected to”(creditor can vote, but office-holder notes objection)

By marking “objected to” instead of REJECTING, Hannon allowed MFC to:

• Remain a “creditor”
• Block Millinder’s meetings
• Maintain “majority creditor” status

This was deliberate. The proofs were obviously false. Hannon should have REJECTED them under Rule 14.7.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THE LIE

By marking “objected to” instead of rejecting:

1. MFC retained voting rights
   • Could block Millinder’s attempts to remove Hannon
   • Could prevent appointment of new liquidator who would pursue MFC
2. Hannon appeared “neutral”
   • “I marked it objected to, so I’m not taking sides”
   • But he WAS taking sides – he let MFC vote
3. Avoided explaining WHY he didn’t reject
   • If he rejected, MFC could appeal (Rule 14.8)
   • Appeal would expose the fraud
   • By marking “objected to,” he avoided scrutiny

PART 3: THE SET-OFF LIE – “NOT APPLICABLE”

1. HANNON’S IMPLICIT CLAIM

Hannon never explicitly addressed Rule 14.25.

But his CONDUCT implied the claim: “Set-off doesn’t apply here.”

Evidence:

• No mention of Rule 14.25 in any report
• No mention of “set-off” in any correspondence
• No mention of “mutual dealings” in any document
• Never set off EEI’s £530k against MFC’s claims

1. WHY THIS IS A LIE

Rule 14.25 IR 2016 – Mutual credit and set-off:

“(1) This rule applies to every insolvency proceeding except where the company is being wound up as an unregistered company under Part 5 of the Act. (2) 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. (4) Only the balance (if any) of the account owed to the creditor is provable in the insolvency proceedings…”

The rule is MANDATORY:

• “This rule applies to everyinsolvency proceeding”
• “An account mustbe taken”
• “sums due from the one mustbe set off”

The facts:

Set-off calculation:

• EW owes MFC: £4,111,874.75
• MFC owes EW: £10,000,000+
• Net: MFC owes EW £5,888,125.25+
• MFC’s provable debt: £0.00

Hannon’s MANDATORY duty:

• Take account of mutual dealings
• Set off MFC’s claim against EW’s claim
• Admit proof for balance only (£0)

Hannon did NONE of this.

1. HANNON’S EXCUSES (AND WHY THEY’RE LIES)

Excuse 1: “EW has no assets, so no point investigating claims“

Why it’s a lie:

• Rule 14.25 applies to “everyinsolvency proceeding” – no exception for “no assets”
• The REASON EW has “no assets” is BECAUSE Hannon didn’t pursue the £10m claim against MFC
• If he had set off (as required), MFC’s proof would be £0, and EW would have a £6m+ net claim
• This claim IS an asset
• By refusing to set off, Hannon CREATED the “no assets” situation

Excuse 2: “EW’s claim against MFC is disputed/uncertain”

Why it’s a lie:

• Rule 14.25 doesn’t require the claim to be “undisputed”
• It requires “mutual dealings” – which existed (same contracts)
• Even if MFC disputed the claim, Hannon’s duty was to:
  • Investigate the claim
  • Value it (even if disputed)
  • Set off the valued amount
• Hannon did NONE of this

From Rule 14.25(3):

“(3) For the purposes of this rule, the liquidator, the administrator or the trustee (as the case may be) must estimate the value of any claim which by reason of its being subject to a contingency or for any other reason does not bear a certain value.”

Hannon had a MANDATORY duty to estimate EW’s claim and set off.

He refused.

Excuse 3: “I need funding to investigate EW’s claim“

Why it’s a lie:

• The evidence was already before him (Millinder provided it in September 2016 – January 2017)
• The contracts proved no money was owed to MFC
• The timeline proved MFC refused the connection
• No “investigation” was needed – just reading
• Even if investigation was needed, Hannon could have:
  • Requested funding from Millinder (who offered it)
  • Applied to court for directions
  • Appointed solicitors on conditional fee

Hannon did NONE of this.

THE “TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT” LIE: HOW JUDGES WEAPONIZED A PROCEDURAL CERTIFICATION TO CONCEAL FRAUD

A Forensic Analysis of the Most Dangerous Judicial Lie in the Millinder Conspiracy.

WHAT IS “TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT”?

THE LEGAL DEFINITION

Civil Procedure Rule 23.12:

“Where the court dismisses an application (including an application for permission to appeal) and it considers that the application is totally without merit— (a) the court’s order must record that fact; and (b) the court must at the same time consider whether it is appropriate to make a civil restraint order.”

THE CONSEQUENCES OF TWM CERTIFICATION

When an application is certified “Totally Without Merit”:

1. No right to request reconsideration– the application is dead
2. No oral hearing– cannot argue the case in person
3. Triggers restraint orders– Extended Civil Restraint Orders (ECRO) or All Proceedings Orders (APO)
4. Permanent record– future judges see applicant as “vexatious litigant”
5. Chilling effect– discourages further applications (even meritorious ones)

TWM is the judicial “nuclear option” – it destroys not just the application, but the applicant’s access to justice.

THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR TWM

What does “Totally Without Merit” actually mean?

Wasif v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82, paragraph 39:

“An application is ‘totally without merit’ if it is bound to fail. The test is an objective one… The application must be so clearly without merit that there is no reasonably arguable case.”

Key principles:

1. “Bound to fail”– not “unlikely to succeed” or “weak case” – but NO POSSIBILITY of success
2. “No reasonably arguable case”– not just “I disagree” – but NO REASONABLE ARGUMENT exists
3. Objective test– not the judge’s opinion, but whether any reasonable judge could find merit

The bar is VERY HIGH. TWM should be rare.

THE TWM CERTIFICATIONS IN MILLINDER’S CASE

WHICH APPLICATIONS WERE CERTIFIED TWM?

According to the forensic report and Millinder’s witness statements, multiple applications were certified “Totally Without Merit”:

1. Applications to set aside Arnold J’s ex parte order (despite Nugee J finding “material non-disclosure”)
2. Applications challenging Jones’s orders (despite Jones acting outside jurisdiction)
3. Applications to set aside the ECRO (despite trespass on witness immunity)
4. Appeals against the APO (despite Solicitor General having no jurisdiction)
5. Applications for permission to appeal (despite clear errors of law)

Each certification stated: “This application is totally without merit.”

THE PATTERN: TWM USED TO SILENCE

The timeline reveals a pattern:

Every application exposing the fraud: certified TWM.

Every application seeking justice: certified TWM.

Every appeal: certified TWM.

PART 3: WHY THE TWM CERTIFICATIONS ARE LIES

THE FRAUD WAS PROVEN – NOT “BOUND TO FAIL”

Application: Set aside Arnold J’s ex parte order (9 January 2017)

Millinder’s case:

1. Middlesbrough FC withheld 172 pages from ex parte hearing
2. Staunton lied: “no further mention of force majeure in lease”
3. Assignment notice was concealed (served 6 January, not disclosed 9 January)
4. Material non-disclosure vitiates ex parte orders (Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 1) [2013] UKSC 38)
5. Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders obtained by fraud

The law:

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 1) [2013] UKSC 38, paragraph 32:

“The duty of full and frank disclosure applies to all ex parte applications… Material non-disclosure will normally result in the order being set aside.”

Brink’s Mat Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350:

“If material non-disclosure is established, the court will be astute to ensure that a plaintiff who obtains an ex parte injunction without full disclosure is deprived of any advantage he may have derived from it.”

The facts PROVEN by Mr Justice Nugee (5 February 2018)

“I accept that there were documents which were not put before Mr Justice Arnold which arguably should have been… I accept that the assignment was not referred to in the evidence before Arnold J.”

Nugee J FOUND material non-disclosure.

Yet applications to set aside were certified TWM.

Why this is a lie:

If a High Court Judge (Nugee J) found “material non-disclosure,” how can applications to set aside be “totally without merit”?

The case law is clear: material non-disclosure = order set aside.

Therefore:

• The application was NOT “bound to fail”
• There WAS a “reasonably arguable case”
• The application had MERIT (proven by Nugee J’s findings)

Certifying it TWM was a LIE.

Purpose: Prevent the fraudulent order being set aside, protect Middlesbrough FC.

1. JONES HAD NO JURISDICTION – NOT “BOUND TO FAIL”

Application: Set aside Jones’s orders / Appeal Jones’s orders

Millinder’s case:

1. EEI’s application involved fraud, contempt, and misfeasance
2. Such applications MUST be heard by High Court Judge (not Registrar/ICC Judge)
3. Jones was a Registrar (later ICC Judge) – lower rank than High Court Judge
4. Jones had NO jurisdiction to hear the application
5. Orders made without jurisdiction are VOID (Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118)

The law:

Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings, paragraph 13.1:

“Applications involving substantial questions of law or allegations of fraud, contempt of court, or other serious misconduct should be made to a High Court Judge.”

EEI’s application alleged:

• Fraud (MFC’s fraudulent non-disclosure, Hannon’s fraudulent breach of duty)
• Contempt (Staunton’s perjury)
• Misfeasance (Hannon’s breach of statutory duty)

This REQUIRED a High Court Judge.

Nicholas Briggs (Chief Registrar) CROSSED OUT the request for a High Court Judge and assigned it to Jones (a Registrar).

Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118, page 136 (Lord Denning MR):

“If a judge acts without jurisdiction – if he goes outside it – then his acts are void… They can be challenged in any court at any time.”

If Jones had no jurisdiction, his orders are VOID.

Applications to set them aside are NOT “bound to fail” – they MUST succeed.

Why this is a lie:

If the law says “orders without jurisdiction are void,” how can applications to set them aside be “totally without merit”?

The application was legally sound. The case law supported it. The Practice Direction required a High Court Judge.

Certifying it TWM was a LIE.

Purpose: Protect Jones from exposure, prevent his orders being voided, conceal the conspiracy.

1. WITNESS IMMUNITY WAS ABSOLUTE – NOT “BOUND TO FAIL”

Application: Set aside costs orders / ECRO / APO (all trespass on witness immunity)

Millinder’s case:

1. Millinder was a witness from 9 January 2017 onwards
2. Witnesses have ABSOLUTE immunity from suit (civil or criminal)
3. No court has jurisdiction to make costs orders against witnesses for evidence given
4. No court has jurisdiction to restrain witnesses from giving evidence
5. All such orders are VOID (Darker v Chief Constable [2001] 1 AC 435)

The law:

Darker v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435, page 443 (Lord Hope):

“The immunity which is given to witnesses in respect of evidence given in court is absolute. It is not qualified by considerations of malice, lack of good faith or the giving of false evidence… The public interest in the administration of justice requires that witnesses should be protected from actions for defamation and from other forms of civil liability.”

This immunity extends to:

• Evidence given in court
• Witness statements filed
• Informations laid before magistrates
• Complaints to police for purpose of criminal prosecution

Millinder did ALL of these in relation to the MFC fraud and judicial conspiracy.

Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2004] EWCA Civ 943, paragraph 29:

“The immunity is absolute. There are no exceptions to it… The immunity applies however malicious, irrelevant or false the evidence may be.“

If the immunity is ABSOLUTE, with NO EXCEPTIONS, then:

• Costs orders against Millinder for his evidence = VOID (trespass on immunity)
• ECRO restraining him from bringing proceedings = VOID (prevents him giving evidence as witness)
• APO requiring permission before proceedings = VOID (same reason)

Applications to set aside these orders are NOT “bound to fail” – the law REQUIRES they be set aside.

Why this is a lie:

If the House of Lords says witness immunity is “absolute” with “no exceptions,” how can applications based on that immunity be “totally without merit”?

The legal principle is settled. The case law is binding. The immunity is absolute.

Certifying applications TWM was a LIE.

Purpose: Maintain the restraint orders, keep Millinder silenced, prevent exposure of judicial corruption.

14. RULE 14.25 IS MANDATORY – NOT “BOUND TO FAIL”

Application: Exclude MFC’s proofs under Rule 14.11 / Appeal Jones’s refusal to apply Rule 14.25

Millinder’s case:

1. Rule 14.25 IR 2016 is MANDATORY (“must be set off”)
2. MFC’s claim (£4.1m) and EW’s cross-claim (£10m+) arose from same contracts
3. These are “mutual dealings”
4. Hannon and Jones MUST set off
5. After set-off, MFC’s provable debt = £0
6. MFC’s proof should be excluded

The law:

Rule 14.25(2) IR 2016:

“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.”

The word is “MUST” not “MAY.”

This is mandatory, not discretionary.

Re Daintrey, ex parte Holt [1893] 2 QB 116:

“The doctrine of set-off in bankruptcy is imperative. The trustee has no option but to apply it.”

MS Fashions Ltd v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (No 2) [1993] Ch 425, page 432:

“The rule of set-off is mandatory. It is not a matter of discretion.”

If the rule is mandatory, and Jones/Hannon refused to apply it, they acted unlawfully.

Applications to compel them to apply it, or to appeal their refusal, are NOT “bound to fail” – the law REQUIRES set-off.

Why this is a lie:

If the law says set-off is “mandatory” and “imperative,” how can applications to enforce it be “totally without merit”?

The rule is clear. The case law is binding. The duty is mandatory.

Yet Jones made NO MENTION of Rule 14.25 in ANY judgment.

Applications to enforce the rule were certified TWM.

This is a LIE.

Purpose: Protect MFC’s fraudulent proof, conceal Hannon’s breach of duty, prevent exposure of the conspiracy.

1. SIRROS V MOORE IS BINDING – NOT “BOUND TO FAIL”

Application: Private prosecution of Jones for fraud by abuse of position

Millinder’s case (information laid before Westminster Magistrates, February 2019):

1. Jones committed fraud by abuse of position (Section 4 Fraud Act 2006)
2. Judicial immunity does NOT protect judges from criminal prosecution for corruption
3. Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118– binding Court of Appeal authority
4. Lord Denning: judges CAN be prosecuted if corrupt
5. Magistrate MUST issue summons if evidence discloses offence

The law:

Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118, page 136 (Lord Denning MR):

“Ever since the year 1613, if not before, it has been accepted in our law that no action is maintainable against a judge for anything said or done by him in the exercise of a jurisdiction which belongs to him… But suppose a judge is corrupt. Suppose he takes a bribe. Suppose he deliberately distorts the law. What then? He can be punished in the criminal courts. He can be removed from office.”

This is BINDING Court of Appeal authority.

Deputy Chief Magistrate Ikram CONTRADICTED it:

“Clive High Jones is immune from criminal prosecution.”

Why this is a lie:

If the Court of Appeal says corrupt judges CAN be prosecuted, how can an application to prosecute be “totally without merit”?

Ikram’s statement directly contradicts binding precedent.

He certified the application TWM (implicitly – by refusing the summons and stating it had no merit).

This is a LIE.

Purpose: Protect Jones from prosecution, maintain false doctrine that “judges cannot be prosecuted,” place judiciary above the law.

PART 4: THE SYSTEMATIC PATTERN OF TWM LIES

1. THE STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY

Consider the probability:

Millinder made approximately 20-30 applications/appeals between 2017-2023.

Subject matter:

• Ex parte fraud (proven by Nugee J)
• Lack of jurisdiction (proven by Practice Direction)
• Witness immunity (absolute, per House of Lords)
• Mandatory set-off (Rule 14.25 says “must”)
• Judicial corruption (protected by Sirros v Moore)

Each application was based on:

• Binding case law
• Statutory provisions
• Proven facts
• Clear legal principles

Result: Nearly ALL certified “Totally Without Merit.”

The statistical question:

What are the odds that 20-30 applications, each based on binding law and proven facts, are ALL “bound to fail” with “no reasonably arguable case”?

Answer: Statistically impossible.

Even weak cases usually have SOME arguable merit. Even losing cases are rarely TWM.

For EVERY application to be TWM suggests:

1. Either Millinder is the worst lawyer in history (he’s not – he’s proven the fraud)
2. Or the judges are lying to silence him

CONCLUSION: THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE CONTINUES

The Case That Could Bring Down the British Judiciary

As this investigation goes to press, Intelligence UK Investigations Ltd (IUK) has filed proceedings in the King’s Bench Division with Mr Millinder as witness seeking declaratory judgments that could shake the foundations of the British legal system.

The relief sought includes:

• Declaration that all orders against Millinder are void(trespass on witness immunity)
• Declaration that Jones, Hannon, and others committed fraud(Section 4 Fraud Act 2006)
• Declaration that judicial immunity does NOT protect corrupt judges from prosecution(per Sirros v Moore)
• Damages exceeding £21.4 millionagainst MFC, the judges, Official Receivers, and the Solicitor General
• Criminal prosecution of all conspirators

What Happens Next?

Three scenarios are possible:

Scenario 1: The Courts Uphold the Law

• All void orders are set aside
• Millinder’s immunity is recognized
• The conspirators are prosecuted
• British justice is restored

Scenario 2: The Courts Continue the Cover-Up

• IUK’s applications are dismissed as “vexatious”
• More restraint orders are imposed
• The conspiracy deepens
• The rule of law dies

Scenario 3: Public Pressure Forces Action

• Media exposure triggers independent inquiry
• Parliamentary investigation launched
• Judicial Conduct Investigations Office forced to act
• Police compelled to investigate

Why This Matters to Every British Citizen

This is not just about one businessman’s fight against corruption. This is about whether Britain is still a nation governed by law.

If judges can:

• Commit fraud from the bench with impunity
• Refuse to apply mandatory statutory provisions
• Protect fraudsters and punish victims
• Place themselves “above the law”

Then no one is safe.

• Your business can be destroyed by ex parte fraud (172 pages withheld, no consequences)
• Your debts can be manipulated by corrupt Official Receivers (mandatory set-off ignored)
• Your evidence can be concealed by judges (witness immunity violated)
• Your access to justice can be denied (restraint orders for exposing corruption)

The conspiracy against Paul Millinder could happen to anyone.

The Evidence is Public

Unlike most allegations of judicial corruption, this case is fully documented:

• Court transcripts proving Staunton lied (“no further mention of force majeure”)
• Judgments proving judges concealed evidence (not ONE mention of “Rule 14.25”)
• Magistrate’s order contradicting binding precedent (Sirros v Moore)
• Contracts proving no money was owed (force majeure clause, conditions precedent)
• Timeline proving Middlesbrough FC caused the breach (refused connection 30 April 2015)

The evidence is not in dispute. The documents speak for themselves.

The only question is: Will the British justice system have the courage to hold its own members accountable?