Insolvency & judicial corruption

Mr Justice Snowden is corrupt – Analysis of the order of 23rd February 2021

This analysis explains in detail how the corrupt judiciary have been perverting the course of justice, undermining and failing to administer the law, whilst concealing fraud and dishonesty on the part of the corrupt lawyers and the “Official Receiver of London” who they are working for. Their actions constitute fraud upon the Court, invalidating all of the orders made in their protracted premeditated proceedings in any event. The combined actions of the corrupt judiciary in this case, demonstrates clearly to the public that one cannot rely on the courts to to justice. The judges are criminals.

Note 1:

  1. Snowden J certified the application by Mr Millinder of 14th January 2021 as “totally without merit” when the application is an application to set aside the false instrument GCRO (“General Extended Civil Restraint Order”), knowing that the GCRO was founded by an ultra vires act by Fancourt J, the white-collar criminal who was perverting the course of justice and assisting the offenders in defrauding Mr Millinder. The GCRO is void, as is the order of 11th November 2020. A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [1963] 1 Ch 502 and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978] 3 WLR 1) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’ or ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (See also: Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School [1978] 3 WLR 736). 

1.1. A without jurisdiction, ultra vires act founded the order: Fancourt did not have the jurisdiction to continue presiding over the case in absence of determination of the application of 10th November 2020 made by Mr Millinder to recuse him from the case. That application was not determined until 27th November 2020 under the guise of the false instrument GCRO made by Fancourt when he had no jurisdiction to make it, he was disqualified from the case. The position is absolutely incontrovertible, no judge can hear an application where there is an application to recuse him from hearing that application, without first determining the recusal grounds. It is proven beyond doubt therefore that it was ultra vires of Fancourt to have made any order on 11th November 2020 and therefore it is proven that the GCRO and the order of 11th November 2020 is void as ultra vires and ceases to exist from the outset.

1.2. None of Mr Millinder’s applications are without merit: It is, in addition, ultra vires (beyond one’s powers) to affront a judgment of the superior Court and in this case the Court of Appeal judgment in Wasif v Secretary of State for Home Department 2016, which denotes that none of Mr Millinder’s applications could possibly be without merit. Snowden knew this, but following suit with his fellow conspirers, he refused Mr Millinder’s application and certified as “totally without merit”, defying the law and defeating the Court of Appeal judgment that proves none of the applications were ever without merit.  The statement of 15th December 2020 that Snowden J referred to proved the position entirely, but as usual, the corrupt judiciary evaded all of the evidence and arguments in Mr Millinder’s favour. The second page of the statement has a table of contents for ease in navigation. The statement proves multiple frauds committed by Staunton, Womble Bond Dickinson and Middlesbrough FC. It is those frauds that the corrupt judiciary have been concealing throughout and Vos was the biggest culprit in doing so. One relied on what the last concealed to continuing concealing the fraud when all of their orders are void. The preliminary consideration that “goes to the heart” of each application, has been concealed by the corrupt judiciary and Snowden’s judgment is a prime example.

1.3. A person affected by both a void or voidable order has the right,  ex debito justitiae, to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [1943). The corrupt judiciary have refused that right, because they are relying on legal fiction, founded by nothing, to defraud and to conceal fraud and proceeds of crime.

2. The application was made under the false instrument GCRO, seeking permission pursuant to paragraph 3.2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 3C

Note 2:

  1. At note 1, we referred to the Court of Appeal Judgment in Wasif v Secretary of State for Home Department (2016). The judgment set out the “inescapable points” when any judge is considering a totally without merit certification. Amongst those points are:

No judge should certify an application as “totally without merit” unless he or she is: “confident after careful consideration that the case truly is bound to fail. He or she will no doubt have in mind the seriousness of the issue and the consequence of his decision in the particular case.” (per Maurice Kay LJ in Grace)

1.1. Note, the Court of Appeal emphasis is added on the case being truly bound to fail and that no judge should certify the application within the case as “totally without merit” if the case has properly arguable grounds. In Mr Millinder’s case, the preliminary considerations are proven, but they have been evaded and concealed by the corrupt judiciary. It was those preliminary considerations set out in detail within the statement, from the table of contents page itself, making the case absolutely clear. Snowden knew this, he knew none of Mr Millinder’s applications were without merit and the Court of Appeal decision proves this, but he, like the rest of the corruptors, made them so, because they have been abusing the law to conceal fraud under the façade of false instrument restraint orders. The ultra vires act is that set out in Note 1, paragraph 1.2. It is ultra vires for the inferior Court to undermine a judgement of the superior Court and the judgment in question determines that none of Mr Millinder’s applications can possibly be without merit, on the contrary, the case is proven.

1.2. The next point within the Court of Appeal judgment is:

Where a judge suspects that there may be an arguable claim, even if the point in question has not been pleaded properly or at all, then it should not be certified as “totally without merit”.

1.3. Snowden and his co-conspirer white-collar criminals knew full well that Mr Millinder’s case is proven. They all evaded the salient 10-page letter setting out this irrefutable position and low and behold, it was that letter, which was amongst the 13-exhibits of material information that Middlesbrough FC, Womble Bond Dickinson and Ohrenstein withheld form the ex-parte hearing of 23rd October 2020. The corrupt judiciary concealed all that entirely and when Fancourt was made aware of it (page 29 of the transcript), this was the result:

Mr Millinder: Yes, My Lord. OK, well, I have heard, obviously, everything that Mr Ohrenstein has said, and there are several issues that immediately sort of hit home. And the
first one is that these people have made an ex parte application, and in the ex parte applications, as My Lordship will know, the duty of candour is on the Applicants to disclose
all material facts relevant to the application in question
, and they were seeking to obtain an ex parte injunction for a Restraining Order [sic] preventing me from winding up
Middlesbrough Football Club and they were seeking to obtain, ex parte, an Extended Civil Restraining Order [sic]. Your Lordship will note that I did address this rather substantially in my first witness statement, and I refer, to cut a long story short, I appreciate we have not got a lot of time and there is a lot of information to go through, but if we turn to my bundle and just go across to tab 13, we have got the letter there from myself to Ms Drewitt, Arnold J’s clerk, dated 20 May 2020. I think really we can condense most matters just by focusing on this salient letter that was withheld by the Defendants, which is pertinent to the application ex parte.

Fancourt J: Sorry, I am not, I am not there yet.
Mr Millinder: OK.
Fancourt J: Your, your bundle.
Mr Millinder: Yeah, in my bundle, tab 13. So you have got the PDF portfolio of exhibits, with the front page being my indexated bundle. Tab 13, you can actually just click on the
link that I have included within it, for very clear ease of navigation.
Fancourt J: I do not have it

1.4. The bundle referred to was the 41-tab bundle of evidence Mr Millinder was relying on with the application that was filed with the application for trial of 28th October 2020 that Fancourt evaded entirely, because he was assisting the offenders. From page 32 of the transcript, Fancourt then confirmed this:

Mr Millinder: No, it is the letter dated 20 May 2020, at tab 13, to Ms Drewitt, of ten pages.
Fancourt J: Right, well, I do not have access to that.

1.5. The standard of review that is inescapable in the public interest respective of fraudulent non-disclosure during ex-parte financial proceedings by lawyers was completely and deliberately absent. It was a case of history repeating itself, wherein the first time around, Nugee perverted the course of justice and made various excuses for not setting aside the orders of 9th January 2017 and 16th January 2017 when both were founded by fraud. He was protecting the offenders from prosecution after they dishonestly withheld 172 pages of witness exhibit from the ex-parte hearing, knowing that the information withheld would have proven the demand originating their ex-parte hearing. Fancourt has done precisely the same and Miles and Snowden back them up. They are there only to pervert the course of justice and to assist the offenders in using the court to further their frauds.

1.6. During the hearing of 6th November 2020, which was supposed to be the hearing dealing with the ex-parte fraudulent non-disclosure and the frauds that have been concealed by the corrupt judiciary, Fancourt himself admitted that he did not access one single exhibit of evidence that Mr Millinder had referred to, but yet, he made a decision that the 13-exhibits withheld from the ex-parte hearing were not material when they absolutely are. These criminals have been consistently perverting the course of justice. They are harbored by the corrupt establishment, even though they have breached their oaths and officially none of them are judges, they are retained to continue defrauding innocent parties who come to the courts to seek justice.

1.7. At page 4, paragraph 16, through to the end of the document (tab_13) it is proven that none of Mr Millinder’s applications can possibly be totally without merit and the contents of the letter itself is absolutely material in proving Mr Millinder’s case. The offenders knew this, which is why, they fraudulently withheld the letter, along with 12 other exhibits of material information. Fancourt certified the application to discharge the injunction that was founded by fraud as “totally without merit”. Miles followed suit, because they have been abusing their positions, certifying as “totally without merit” as the means of concealing the proven multiple frauds.

Note 3:

  1. The comments at paragraph 10 of Snowden’s order demonstrate clearly the lengths these quisling state terrorists have gone to conceal the proven facts in the case. From 9th January 2017 and at all times thereafter, the principal offenders, Middlesbrough FC and their conspirers, including the corrupt judiciary, have presented an entirely false case. Snowden refers to the lies Stewart told, because he knew Stewart has committed perjury. Snowden stated:

The relationship between Middlesbrough FC and Empowering Wind appears to have broken down quickly over the connection of the wind turbine to the grid. In June 2015, Middlesbrough FC claimed rent totalling £256,269.89 and threatened to forfeit the lease.

1.1. Snowden knew, that there is a completed collateral contract affirmed when on 7th November 2012, during the option period, Bloom, the former senior partner of Womble Bond Dickinson, extended the option for the specific purpose of completing the Connection Offer and that it was the express requirement of the Distribution Network Operator for the Club to take ownership of its substations so that the private network could be established that the turbine was to connect into. Snowden lied and stated “the relationship broke down over the connection”, knowing that the connection was agreed by the Club themselves. He was following suit with Paul Stewart’s false witness statement, knowing that the offenders failed to disclose any mention of the fact that the Club refused the connection during the ex-parte hearing of 9th January 2017. There is no dispute over the completed collateral contract or the connection whatsoever, the fact is that the Club refused the connection that was the entire purpose of the project in the first instance. They all knew, that without a connection, the turbine cannot operate.

1.2. Snowden then misrepresented the position in relation to the claim, when he knew that the bulk of the claim (£181,269.89) was made up of energy supply. Snowden lied about this because he was concealing the fact that he knew the claim was a fraud. Moving to the letter Mr Millinder sent to Snowden on 1st February 2021, the letter made the position absolutely clear. Page 6 of the 8 page letter is page 1 of the letter to Gibson, the white-collar criminal Chairman of the Club. Line 3, through to line 36 of page 7 proves the position entirely. The submission was based on the terms of the completed Lease and Energy Supply Agreement, those terms cannot be diminished. The position is, as conveyed within that letter:

even if Middlesbrough FC did not refuse the connection, preventing me from performing on the rights granted when the wind turbine was ready to construct, it still unlawfully forfeited the Lease.


The Force Majeure provision suspended the period free of rent, that did not recommence, with the carry over of 267 days, accordingly. The first instalment of rent was not therefore due until 15th September 2015.

1.3. Snowden knew this and he made the conscious and premeditated decision to make a false representation (section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006) to defraud Mr Millinder and to conceal the blatant frauds that he and his co-conspirers, the purported judges, have been concealing from the outset. Snowden knew that no rent was owed and no energy supply was owed either, therefore he knew that there was no “rent totalling £256,269.89

Note 4:

  1. At paragraph 11, knowing that Middlesbrough FC did make the unwarranted demand with menaces after refusing the connection affirmed by the completed collateral contract during the option period, Snowden lied and said the Club “purported to terminate the Lease“. He did in fact know that they terminated the Lease, causing the loss, but again, following in the footsteps of his fellow dishonest coward co-conspirer, Vos, the now head of the UK’s civil justice system, Snowden said “purported”, meaning; “appearing or stated to be true, though not necessarily so; alleged”, knowing that the Club did unlawfully forfeit the Lease. He was again concealing Mr Millinder’s preliminary consideration, that has been concealed by the corrupt judiciary and their co-conspirers, the Club, Womble Bond Dickinson and their fellow white-collar criminals, Staunton and Ohrenstein of Radcliffe Chambers.

2. Snowden knew that the offenders unlawfully forfeited the Lease, therefore he knew that the claim, quantified with a high degree of certainty (he had the quantum of claim in his possession) is proven. Snowden knew that the claims made by Middlesbrough FC were all false, but he was concealing the fraud, knowing of the fraudulent claims that were made in insolvency proceedings to keep the proven damages claim, beyond the reach of creditors. That was the aim of Snowden, Miles, Vos, Fancourt, Pelling, Arnold, Nugee, Jones, Briggs, because they have all conspired to defraud and perverted the course of justice, to defraud Mr Millinder not only of the proven £18.7 million damages claim, but also the assigned investments exceeding £1.17 million, knowing that neither can possibly be disputed or challenged. At paragraph 12, Snowden therefore knew that the “notice of intention to appear” was a fraud, as was the second proof of debt in the sum of £541,308.89 and as was the third, exceeding £4.1 million, all of which, are of the same originating source as the first, the unwarranted demand with menaces used to unlawfully forfeit the Lease.

3. Snowden knew, being an insolvency judge, that it is a criminal offence (section 2 Fraud Act 2006 – fraud by false representation), to make fraudulent claims in insolvency proceedings. Snowden therefore was only too well aware of the frauds that had been committed and he made the conscious and premeditated attempt to conceal those frauds (perverting the course of justice) to assist the offenders, when he also knew, all of the orders in this case are void ab initio, founded by fraud upon the court, the fraud on the part of the judges themselves. Snowden knew that the formal proof of debt form that Gill used to commit fraud, has a penal notice on it for that reason. We quote:

The information you provide in your completed proof of debt must be true and accurate to the best of your information, knowledge and belief. If you fail to do so, you may be committing a criminal offence for which you could be prosecuted.

Note 5:

  1. At paragraph 14, Snowden refers to the £530,000 sum of the statutory demand that originated the Club’s ex-parte hearing of 9th January 2017, wherein they could not defend the demand, because it is proven, so they fraudulently withheld 172 pages of witness evidence that proved it instead, in tandem with Staunton dishonestly omitting the operative provision of “Force Majeure” from the Lease, failing to make any mention whatsoever that the Club refused the connection or that the Energy Supply Agreement is conditional upon “The Generator’s / Mr Millinder’s” “full satisfaction of” the Connection Agreement that Middlesbrough FC and Womble Bond Dickinson refused. The failure in duty of candour came in tandem with failing to disclose the evidence, in particular the connection contracts making up the entire Connection Agreement. They were acting dishonestly to conceal the fact that the Club rendered the project useless by “u-turning” on the connection.

2. It becomes clear that they were all relying on the corrupt judiciary to conceal it all for them anyway and that is precisely what they have done. Bribery can be the only motive. Why else would they behave in this protracted malicious way, acting with “favour and ill-will” in breach of their judicial oaths, unless they are being paid very substantial sums of money to do so?

3. Also at paragraph 14, Snowden seeks to discredit the assignment, because he knew that the assignment is valid and the law makes it so. This is what the corrupt judiciary have done throughout, starting with Nugee, who committed fraud by false representation and dishonestly misrepresented the terms of the assignment on 5th February 2018 and ending with Snowden who came out with this nonsense, taking of an “alleged assignment” and then stating categorically that “(which had not in fact been assigned)“.

4. Snowden does know the law, therefore he knew that the law, namely section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 makes the assignments, both of them, valid. His lies affront the supremacy of the law itself. Snowden knew that any absolute assignment, signed under hand by the assignor and served on the affected party is effectual in law. The law that makes the assignments valid is not subject to diminishment. Snowden however, had that letter of 1st February 2021 before him and at the top of page 3, he was shown specifically that Staunton, Middlesbrough FC’s own barrister admitted the assignment had taken place on 5th February 2018, just 4-days before they presented the covert (without notice) winding up petition for £25,000 they all knew was extinguished by the assigned investments. We quote from that letter what Staunton admitted during the hearing (on the transcript):

Mr Staunton: “Second page in. Reading that second paragraph, what’s assigned to EEI are the investments, the £200,000”

5. Even Staunton had to admit that the assignment is valid, because the law makes it so. Snowden, Miles, Fancourt, Nugee, Vos, Pelling and Arnold sought to reinvent the law, because they have been conspiring to defraud. In the same letter to Snowden however, Mr Millinder recited what Fancourt admitted during the hearing of 6th November 2020:

6. From page 3 of the letter to Snowden:

Fancourt J: “Well, it seems to me the position is that the, the validity of the assignment by EW MFC to EE was never actually decided by a judge at a, at a trial”

7. On the same page of the letter, Mr Millinder recited how Nugee explained that the order of 9th January 2017 and 16th January 2017 were sustained, knowing they were founded by fraud:

Nugee J: “There’s doubt, doubt over the assignment and dispute over the claim”

The judicial criminals have “stepped into the shoes of the fraudsters” – Misusing insolvency law to defraud creditors

  1. The assignment is effectual in law from the date of service (30th June 2015) and the claim cannot be disputed because it is proven that Middlesbrough FC did unlawfully forfeit the Lease. They could not defend the claim, so they fraudulently withheld all the evidence that proved it instead during that ex-parte financial proceeding, in tandem with failing to disclose they refused the connection, rendering he project useless.

2 As a matter of fact, aside from the proven fact that on 5th February 2018, the offenders all knew that Earth Energy Investments does not owe the Club £25,000. Their alleged claim is extinguished by 26.6 times. The standard 8% interest alone from the date of the assignment is £110,472.33.

3. The law that the criminals disguised as judges failed altogether to apply is that of rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016. They failed to apply that law, the law in set off, because they have been using the Court to defraud, knowing that all the claims by Middlesbrough FC are fraudulent and that it was their frauds that founded all the proceedings to start with. The corrupt court is a lawless, immoral and unintegral place of fraud, injustice and gross human rights abuse.

4. On precisely the same basis, the corrupt judiciary, but Snowden in particular, who specialises in insolvency law, knew that an alleged debt that is subject to challenge by order of a High Court Judge is not a petition debt. Mr Millinder’s statement with the application took Snowden to the conscious and premeditated dishonesty founding the winding up order. Page 2 of his statement, the table of contents is titled:

“The alleged £25k petition debt is a nullity – on a number of different grounds, aside from the fact that the winding up order of 28th March 2018 was founded by Staunton’s fraud”

5. Page 21, paragraph 74, through to paragraph 79 of Mr Millinder’s statement proves beyond doubt that aside from the fact that the £25k alleged debt is a nullity, extinguished by 26.6 times as of 5th February 2018 and that Staunton admitted the assignment is valid himself, Snowden was abundantly well aware that on 21st March 2018, Nugee made that order listing the application to set side the alleged consent order (there was no consent) aside. Snowden knew therefore that the petition was an abuse of process on these grounds alone, but more critically, he was concealing Staunton’s proven fraud. Vos, Miles, Fancourt, Nugee, Pelling, Arnold, Briggs and Jones did precisely the same, this is how these dishonest clown act state terrorists operate. They defraud and then conceal their atrocities with further frauds. It is a fraud to conceal frauds, but they did so, by creating false instrument civil restraint orders founded by their own frauds and dishonesty.

6. At page 23, paragraph 82, Mr Millinder highlighted what Fancourt had found during his rigged hearing of 6th November 2020:

Fancourt J:The Chancellor was saying was that, that the underlying substantive issues have never in fact been tried”

7. The underlying substantive issue is the preliminary consideration that is inextricably linked with the fraudulent claims, the fraud by failing to disclose information ex-parte and the fact that Mr Millinder’s claim, founded by unlawful forfeiture of the Lease is proven. Vos however, the then “Chancellor of the High Court” concealed Staunton’s fraud, concealed the fact that all the orders are founded by fraud and fraud upon the court, disposed of the claim that was to be heard with the application, failed to do what the application sought to do, and sustained the false instrument ECRO (“Extended Civil Restraint Order) that was founded by Pelling to conceal the same proven frauds.

8. Page 18 of Mr Millinder’s statement, paragraph 62, refers to the fact that during the recession of the fraudulent winding up order that was heard by Briggs, who was conflicted, having met with Hannon on the evening of 22nd November 2017 at the drinks reception by Radcliffe Chambers, Staunton was relying on Nugee’s fraudulent representation of the terms of the assignment to again undermine its integrity:

MR STAUNTON: “That’s an exact quote by Mr Justice Nugee of the resolution”

9. Staunton knew however that Nugee had fraudulently misrepresented the assignment to make it not absolute when it was and at page 18, paragraph 64, it was again admitted clearly, later during the rigged hearing before Briggs, who sought to “keep the petition alive” when it was a nullity and was void from the outset, so he could adjourn the case to Pelling who evaded all the proven evidence and made the ECRO to conceal the frauds. This was said:

MR STAUNTON: “and paras.17 to 24. So there’s a cross claim which extinguishes the liability to pay £25,000”

10. At paragraph 64, Mr Millinder recited more dishonesty on the part of Staunton:

MR STAUNTON: “and if you look at the second page, it’s the 21st March, and this is before Judge Barber”

11. But actually, what was before “Judge Barber” was Staunton’s blatant lies (perjuries) and fraud by false representation that has been concealed by these corrupt, dishonest quisling state terrorists from the outset.

12. At page 20, paragraph 69, Staunton stated this:

MR STAUNTON: There is the cross claim. There is the assignment. So the two grounds upon which Earth Energy invite you to rescind the Winding Up Order were before Judge Barber

13 Yet, that statement that Snowden and the rest of these terrorist white-collar criminals evaded, proves beyond doubt that it was Staunton’s blatant fraud that founded the winding up order for the £25k that he himself admitted was extinguished by the cross claim (£530,000 plus standard interest). The transcript of that summary hearing in Mr Millinder’s absence proves beyond doubt that Staunton lied about the cross claim, the order of 21st March 2018 (just one week prior) and made no mention whatsoever of the assignment, proving conscious and premeditated intent to defraud. Snowden concealed that altogether. We quote from the transcript:

MR STAUNTON: Indeed, but that matter has been fully ventilated in front of Judge Jones, terminating Monday of this week when he dismissed (inaudible) application. I can explain what that is. And also, the adjournment to 10th June is because he wanted to make a second application, the first having been dismissed by Mr Justice Nugee on 5th February. Can we go back? Earth Energy has a fully owned subsidiary, Empowering Wind, which is now in the process of being wound up. The liquidator is Mr Hammond from the OR’s office. The subsidiary had an agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner has, as part of that group, terminated the agreement and also a lease underlying it and Mr Millinder then said, “Well, the subsidiary has a significant claim for damages against Middlesbrough”, but it never brought any proceedings.

JUDGE BARBER: It’s not a cross-claim then.

MR STAUNTON: That is the cross-claim.

MR STAUNTON: On 15th November, Earth Energy issued another application, amongst other things that it wants directions that that claim should be pursued. That came on before Judge (inaudible) for the first hearing on 21st December, where he made it clear to Mr Millinder that as the subsidiary had no assets it couldn’t pursue the claim unless Mr Millinder could put forward proposals to finance that claim, and he adjourned it to allow Mr Millinder to put in such evidence. It came back before Judge Jones on Monday of this week where Mr Millinder had failed to put in any sensible evidence to finance the claim and Mr Hammond said that obviously the subsidiary couldn’t pursue it. Judge Jones then dismissed that application. That’s the cross-claim. That’s disposed of Monday of this week.

14. It is plainly evidenced that all of this was before Snowden, just as it was all before Vos, Fancourt, Miles, Nugee, Pelling, Briggs and Jones, but they have conspired to pervert the course of justice, assisting the offenders in using the court to defraud whilst preventing justice being served on them.

15. This case proves beyond doubt how the principal offenders, the purported lawyers, Jeremy Robin Bloom, the former senior partner of Womble Bond Dickinson, collude with the corrupt judiciary to use insolvency as the means of defrauding creditors. They used the fraudulent £4.1 million proof of debt (claim in insolvency) to prevent Mr Millinder from replacing Hannon, who they were conspiring with and they colluded with the judiciary, who assisted them in defrauding Mr Millinder of over £1.17 million off the back of a £25k false liability that ever even existed by their own admission on 5th February 2018 (4 days before Gill of Womble Bond Dickinson, the same Gill who presented the £4.1 million fraudulent claim, presented the without notice winding up petition in that sum).

Note 6:

  1. There never was any genuine consent by Mr Millinder to complete the consent order. Womble Bond Dickinson had colluded with Penningtons to invent a consent order founded by Womble Bond Dickinson and Middlesbrough FC’s fraud. The indisputable position at the heart of this fraud is based on two simple questions. Logic before law

A. Why would Mr Millinder consent to paying Middlesbrough FC costs when their costs were founded by the entirely false case they presented ex-parte?

B. Why would Mr Millinder consent to paying Middlesbrough FC £25,000 when he is owed over £640,000 by them?

Material non-disclosure of the Penningtons Manches LLP complaint of material non-disclosure:

2. It is evidenced that Middlesbrough FC, Womble Bond Dickinson and Staunton failed in their continuing duty to disclose the Penningtons Manches LLP letter dated 11th January 2017 with a “shopping list” of material information that was dishonestly withheld from the ex-pate hearing. The proven and indisputable position here is that had the offenders fulfilled their duty to disclose prior to or on the return date of 16th January 2017, the order of 16th January 2017, alleging to have been by consent, would never have been made. The failure to disclose the Penningtons Manches LLP letter is deliberate and of dishonest intent to conceal what is the most prevailing case of material non-disclosure in the history of UK law, committed by purported lawyers, the aptly named “Womble” Bond Dickinson.

3. Had the offenders fulfilled their duty to disclose, any judge would have discovered the significant and obviously deliberate non-disclosure, in tandem with discovering that Mr Millinder did not consent to costs and no judge would have made the order of 16th January 2017 and the originating ex-parte order of 9th January 2017 would have been set aside. The corrupt judiciary however, have certified this proven position that both orders of 9th January 2017 and 16th January 2017 were founded by fraud as “totally without merit” and doing so has founded their false instrument GCRO. This is how the corrupt judiciary pervert the course of justice and then conceal it.

Note 7:

At paragraph 18 of his order, Snowden seeks to rely on the mala fide nonsense decision of Nugee to sustain the orders of 9th January 2017 and 16th January 2017 when he is just a part of the conspiracy to defraud. The leading authority respective of non-disclosure ex-parte is the 9 points set down in The Arena Corporation Limited v Schroeder [2003] EWHC 1089;

  1. If the court finds that there have been breaches of the duty of full and fair disclosure on the ex parte application, the general rule is that it should discharge the order obtained in breach and refuse to renew the order until trial;

2. Notwithstanding the general rule, the court has jurisdiction to continue or re-grant the order;

3. That jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, and should take account of the need to protect the administration of justice and uphold the public interest in requiring full and fair disclosure;

4. The court should assess the degree and extent of the culpability with regard to non-disclosure. It is relevant that the breach was innocent, but there is no general rule that an innocent breach will not attract the sanction of discharge of the order. Equally, there is no general rule that a deliberate breach will attract that sanction;

5. The court should assess the importance and significance to the outcome of the application for an injunction of the matters which were not disclosed to the court. In making this assessment, the fact that the judge might have made the order anyway is of little, if any importance;

6. The court can weigh the merits of the [claimant’s] claim, but should not conduct a simple balancing exercise in which the strength of the [claimant’s] case is allowed to undermine the policy objective of the principle;

7. The application of the principle should not be carried to extreme lengths or be allowed to become the instrument of injustice;

8. The jurisdiction is penal in nature and the courts should therefore have regard to the proportionality between the punishment and the offence; and

9. There are no hard and fast rules as to whether the discretion to continue or re-grant the order should be exercised, and the court should take into account all relevant circumstances.

Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 undermine entirely the nonsense decision of Nugee, who was assisting the offenders, which the rest of his co-conspirators then sought to have so heavily relied. Fundamentally, the fact of the matter is that the statutory demand is proven and the demand cannot be disputed, that is reason in itself to set aside the orders preventing Mr Millinder from his democratic right to wind up Middlesbrough FC for the indisputable debt they refused to pay.


For the first time in history, this case proves beyond doubt that the UK’s judiciary are nothing but dishonest terrorists and criminals. Taxpayer’s money is being used to fund these criminals, so that they can breach their oaths on a regular basis, acting with ill-will to conceal fraud and assist fellow white collar criminals in advancing their frauds and making further gains founded by their frauds, in the name of justice and whilst reversing the victim of their frauds into the defendant, then concealing all the wrongdoings.

Snowden and the rest of the criminals involved in this case have bene invited for comment and we will publish their comments, if any are forthcoming.


We invite international lawyers and journalists to comment freely on this article and the evidence presented. Please like, share and comment.

Be sure to sign up to our newsletter. Over the coming weeks we will be fully exposing the corrupt UK judiciary and how they have been using the court to defraud many innocent parties of their rightful assets.

If you, or anyone you know have been wronged in the hands of the corrupt UK establishment and the courts they control, please get in touch, we may be able to help you get justice.

About author

We are Intelligence UK International, a leading global private intelligence agency dedicated to investigating and combatting domestic corruption and economic crime where law enforcement fail. Bringing you hard hitting investigatory journalism, holding the unaccountable to account.
Related posts
Insolvency & judicial corruption

Liquidator or trustee breach of fiduciary duty

Insolvency & judicial corruption

Insolvency Service defrauds creditors and Dean Beale perverts

Insolvency & judicial corruption

Grounds for setting aside a statutory demand or bankruptcy petition

Insolvency & judicial corruption

Mr Justice Fancourt is a fraud

Sign up for our Newsletter updates


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Worth reading...
The UK’s judges inflicting evil behind the façade of justice and the law?
error: Alert: All our content is protected - You are prohibited from copying !