Exclusive investigation: Political interference has compromised the UK’s justice system once too often
This government are the worst of all time, they lie, cheat, collude and provide impunity to one another and the corrupt corporations they support. Capitalist cronyism prevails, but most importantly, the rule of law and the standards are so far diminished. None of the politically controlled press have even come close to addressing how the kleptocracy have been interfering with our justice system. The fact is, impartiality and judicial independence is non-existent.
In December last year, even the Lord Chief Justice complained of “unprecedented levels of political interference” stating “there’s been nothing quite like it in my experience”, referring to a number of instances where the Tory establishment have coerced the judiciary.
On 14th April this year the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) blasted Boris Johnson for “political interference” stating that:
“The UK Government could be a bastion of international law and human rights, but instead it is undermining international criminal proceedings and standing in the way of justice. No longer can the UK Government genuinely assert that “Promoting international criminal justice and the rule of law are fundamental elements of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy”. Rather, the Prime Minister’s statement sets a wholly dangerous precedent by the UK, that may impact victims of grave crimes and threatens the viability, objectives, and the future of the court itself.
The ICC went on to state that “the UK Government should respect the impartiality and independence of the court, and should support – rather than substantially undermine – international legal frameworks and judicial mechanisms“. They are so used to interfering with the UK’s judiciary that Bojo and his cronies consider the conduct perfectly normal.
Every single one of us needs to be able to rely on the law and the courts to do justice, but under the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC MP’s control, it doesn’t happen. He has sworn an oath to maintain the independence of the courts and judiciary and to respect the rule of law, but he has done neither. It is for that reason, amongst others that we are petitioning both Houses of Parliament to sack him and to oust the corrupt, oath breaking members of the judiciary with him.
Categoric proof that the courts are being used to defraud
The courts are supposed to protect the people from fraud, corruption and tyranny. They are supposed to be constitutionally independent of the government and free of any third party influence, under this government, they are not. Intelligence UK investigated many high profile cases of judicial impropriety, but to condense it all down, we highlight just three of those cases, proving that justice deliberately not being done.
A. Mr Justice Marcus Smith, the Watsons and Lloyds Banking Group
In the illegal bankruptcy case of Mr and Mrs Watson, Mr Justice Marcus Smith was the “go to” judge for Lloyds Banking Group and their corrupt lawyers, Eversheds, who have used bankruptcy to defraud and conceal.
The issues in the case are absolutely straight forward. Firstly, the Bank sought to take possession of a property, knowing that the property was not owned by the alleged debtors, Mr and Mrs Watson. Secondly, the Judge, the Bank and the lawyers knew that both Mr and Mrs Watson were non-UK resident for over 3-years prior to making the bankruptcy order against them. The issues are therefore that:
- One cannot take possession of property that is owned by a third party and not the debtor;
- Statutory law, namely section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986 makes it illegal to have bankrupted Mr and Mrs Watson even if there was a legitimate debt (which there was not)
Smith however, acting with favour and ill-will, had other ideas and in his judgment of November 2020, he said this:
1.There is no basis to suggest that the judgment against Mrs and Mrs Watson in the Possession Claim, including specifically the judgment debt that led to the making of the bankruptcy orders against them, is anything other than regular and proper
2.There is no basis to suggest that the bankruptcy orders against Mrs and Mr Watson are anything other than regular and proper
Anyone can determine, without investigation, that on both grounds, the conduct is entirely unlawful and improper. What was he doing we ask? He was there to prevent justice being served on the Bank and it’s conspirers, a cover up and fraud in the name of “justice”.
B. Millinder v Middlesbrough FC & 14 corrupt judges
In our CEO’s own case, political interference to prevent justice being served on Steve Gibson’s Middlesbrough FC, because he is a Conservative politician was the driver of the out of control judicial corruption. All the judges were working for the Club, acting under orders to provide impunity to the offenders, no matter what they did.
On 9th January 2017, Ulick Staunton, the barrister acting for Middlesbrough FC said this during the hearing and in writing: “Force Majeure has effect“, meaning that he knew no claims could be established by Middlesbrough FC because Force Majeure absolved any liability.
24-days later, Staunton’s instructing solicitor, Julian Gill of Womble Bond Dickinson claimed over £4.1 million against Mr Millinder’s wind turbine sole purpose company, knowing the claim was false.
On 5th February 2018, from Nugee J’s judgment it was found that:
“it was, 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“
“On the basis of those matters, Middlesbrough demanded payment of money from EW, terminated the lease for non payment of rent and subsequently appeared as a supporting creditor in support of a petition to wind up EW”
“He relies for this on non disclosure of a large number of documents which, as I understand it, supported the statutory demand and which explained the background to the dispute, in particular the connection agreement which, in his submissions to me, he explained was the foundation of his argument that the project was, effectively, killed by Middlesbrough”
“It is not disputed that those documents were not put before Mr Justice Arnold”.
The judges have become the aiders and abettors
Nugee was assisting the offenders, preventing them from being prosecuted for what was the most prolific case of fraudulent non-disclosure by lawyers in ex-parte financial proceedings the history of the UK. It is all about impunity, the public interest “went out of the window
Nugee “rewarded them for the fraud” granting them £10,000 in costs, sustaining the order contrary to every known legal authority.
On 12th November 2018, after racking up over £45,500 against Mr Millinder, working in collusion with the insolvency orientated parasite, Registrar Clive Hugh Jones, Ulick “U-turned” on the claims after he effectually admitted were false on 9th January 2017.
When Mr Millinder made Vos (who is now put in charge as Head of the UK’s civil justice system / Master of the Rolls), aware of the circumstances, Vos asked Staunton to retract and replace his skeleton less the admission so he could conceal the fraud, knowing that the offences have been committed.
On 8th February 2019, Vos then evaded the application by Mr Millinder that sought to deal with the multiple frauds that were concealed by his corrupt colleagues.
The application specifically asked Vos to remove the 3rd fraudulent claim that Staunton had “U-turned on”, the claim exceeding £4.1 million, but, acting under orders, Vos continued the deceit, concealing the fraud whilst fettering the jurisdiction of the Insolvency Court to go behind any judgment if there is not a debt due in truth and reality, sustaining the £4.1 million claim. The head of the UK’s civil justice system is an oath breaking fraudster.
At paragraph 109 of his judgment, Vos stated this:
On 25th June 2015, Middlesbrough invoiced Empowering Wind MFC for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89
Vos made that statement, knowing it was false, and that £181,269.89 was for Energy Supply that was not owed and £75,000 was for rent that was not owed. He knew the claim could not be quantified at all.
Mr Millinder’s skeleton drew the court’s attention to the fact that Staunton also admitted on 11th April 2018 (from the court transcript) that:
MR STAUNTON: “and paras.17 to 24. So there’s a cross claim which extinguishes the liability to pay £25,000″
At paragraph 124 of his judgment:
“ICCJ Barber had no real choice but to wind up Earth Energy on 28th March 2018 based on the costs debt of £25,000. Mr Millinder had failed, on behalf of Earth Energy, to enunciate the claim that it sought to make against Middlesbrough. There was an indisputable unpaid costs judgment against Earth Energy”
“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”.
Knowing that the alleged £25k was extinguished by over 30 times and was subject to challenge by order of Nugee J on 21st March 2018 (one week prior to the winding up) and that even Staunton, Middlesbrough FC’s own barrister admitted extinguished the liability to pay £25k, Vos condoned the illegal winding up, assisting the offenders in using the court to defraud Mr Millinder of over £640,000 plus standard interest for a nullity £25k petition debt that never even existed.
C. Martin Walsh v Paul Staines (AKA Guido Fawkes)
Another shocking case of impunity for inter-connected parties and favoritism, Mr Justice Rimer as he was then known, presided over an ex-parte (without notice) hearing brought by Paul Staines, the famous blogger known as Guido Fawkes, who is well connected with the Conservative establishment. In our article exposing the case, we set out in detail the background.
Staines alleged there was a contract with Mr Walsh, when there never was. It was that contract which formed the basis of the ex-parte application by Staines, who sought a penal freezing injunction, sequestrating Mr Walsh’s funds, exceeding £180,000 off the back of the fictional contract he knew never even existed.
Rimer granted the injunction, freezing Mr Walsh’s assets without even asking to see the alleged contract.
The rule of law determines that during ex-parte financial proceedings, the litigant is under an absolute duty to disclose all material facts relevant to the case. Rimer, who must have bene instructed to assist Staines, hopelessly failed (we assert deliberately), causing Mr Walsh to lose over £850,000. Had Rimer fulfilled his duty, the injunction in favour of Staines would never have even been granted.
During a later appeal by Staines, when it was found by Mr Justice Laddie that the order in his favour was obtained essentially by fraud, Rimer affixed himself to the Court of Appeal hearing, dismissing the appeal citing that “witness immunity applies” to Staines, who was the defendant, using that as an excuse to prevent justice being served on him when Staines had been found to have acted dishonestly.
The doctrine of witness immunity is there to protect witnesses, not defendants. The rationale behind witness immunity is that witnesses should not be deterred from giving evidence in fear of potentially needing to defend actions against them in relation to what they said in court. It cannot possibly apply to a dishonest defendant, but Rimer and his cohorts made it so, after he became the “judge of his own cause“.
In the Court of Appeal decision Rimer sat on it was said that:
“It seems to me plain that no action can lie against Mr Staines for the falsity of the matter stated in his affidavit, no matter how reprehensible his conduct may have been in failing to disclose the truth”.
“That the court was deceived is not to the point. The court made the freezing order on the basis of the affidavit but Mr Walsh knew that full and frank disclosure of his true financial position – assets and liabilities – had not been given. Had the failure to reveal the full extent of Mr Staines’ tax liabilities been raised, and Mr Walsh had ample evidence of it from the telephone conversation on 25th April (see  above) and the e-mail of 30th April (see  above), then the probability is that the injunction would not have been continued on the return date on 2nd May. He stands condemned by his own words.
The stark fact remains that Mr Walsh “always” knew that Mr Staines had not been frank in a material respect, was suspicious about everything he said and in those circumstances he cannot in my judgment have any realistic prospect of persuading the court that he relied even partly upon these lies, prevarications and omissions to tell the whole truth”.
In the renowned authority, Livesey v Jenkins, Lord Brandon held that: “it will only be in cases when the absence of full and frank disclosure has led to the court making … an order which is substantially different from the order which it would have made if such disclosure had taken place that a case for setting aside can possibly be made good”.
The Court of Appeal knew that the duty is on the ex-parte applicant (Staines) to make full and fair disclosure and the principle that applies is that had full and fair disclosure been made, would that disclosure have made a material difference to the order being made? The answer here is, quite categorically, yes, because there never was a contract between the parties from which it was said the case originates in the first instance. Aside from that, had Staines disclosed his true financial position, it would have been discovered that he was of no standing from which to have provided the mandatory personal cross undertaking to establish the order.
The UK’s courts are wilfully failing to administer the law. A case of “justice subject to status”, impunity provided to the political establishment and their affiliates.
Judges who wilfully allow their independence to be compromised, acting with favour and ill-will have breached their oaths. Judges and public officials who breach their oaths are afforded no position in judicial or public office. It is now time to enforce the law.
Please be sure to sign our petition, comment, like, share and donate what you can afford to our cause in restoring the rule of law that underpins our democratic society.