UK corruption

ICC Judge Jones & High Court criminal conspiracy

ICCJ Jones - AKA Clive Hugh Jones and the corrupt judicial fraudsters of the English justice system

ICC Judge Jones (“Insolvency & Companies Court Judge”) Clive Jones, aka ICC Judge Jones or Clive Hugh Jones, was called to the Bar in 1981, unfortunately for the British people. Clive Jones was appointed as a deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court in 2007 and has been responsible for defrauding multiple parties in the name of justice ever since.

Originating from 12 New Square Chambers, a notorious set harboring many freemason barristers of the Chancery Bar Lodge, they all collude together to achieve their objectives. In this case, Jones colluded with “the learned friend next door”, his personal associate, Ulick Staunton, of Radcliffe Chambers, 11 New Square, who was acting for the Club.

Jones and his cabal of delinquent judges violate law they purport to advocate, colluding with fellow counsel “on the square“, of common purpose.  Jones only installed himself to defraud creditors whilst perverting the course of justice.

The corrupt judiciary had no stable foundation from which to build on, rather, they all founded “something on nothing “, then made gains and caused loss from it.  After all, that’s what fraudsters do, they fabricate something that never really was to obtain pecuniary interest by deception.     

The proceedings Jones installed himself to hear (knowingly acting in excess of jurisdiction) are proven to be void from the outset.

We prove in this report that ICCJ Jones is one of the many judicial fraudsters deployed by the corrupt English establishment to hoodwink the people of their assets in the name of “justice”. We evidence how the perpetrators have been “reverse engineering” law designed to recover assets for creditors of insolvent estates, abusing their positions to defraud creditors of those assets.

Sworn into office to act at all times “without fear, favour, affection or ill-will” and “according to law “, it is the primary function of Jones, or any insolvency registrar, to administer company and insolvency law.

In this investigatory report, the first of our findings released in “OPERATION UKJ”, we evidence how ICC Judge Clive Jones deliberately maladministered the law he is paid by the taxpayer to advocate, acting dishonestly with intent to obtain pecuniary interest by deception.

In the follow up report we release our findings where Registrar Jones, as he was then known, has defrauded multiple company directors and innocent parties of their equitable rights granted by law.

If you have a case listed before Jones, we provide permission to present the Court this report and ask them why the Court is acting outside its jurisdiction in detriment to justice and contrary to the law.

You have every right to refuse to have Jones or his co-conspirators preside over your case. Judges who breach their oaths have no jurisdiction, but moreover, it is proven that Jones and all his conspirators are nothing but criminals guilty of criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and conspiracy to defraud.

Table of Contents

ICC Judge Clive Jones – A delinquent public official is not above the law

Delinquent public and judicial office holders who abuse their positions are personally liable for corruption in public office, an offence carrying maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Their victims need to be recovering proceeds of crime, being the gain / loss from their offending.

Unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain a recent photograph of the elusive Clive Hugh Jones of 34 Acacia Road, Hampton, Middlesex TW12 3DS. However, everyone defrauded by Registrar Jones, AKA Mr Registrar Jones, Clive Hugh Jones, ICC Judge Jones knows where to serve proceedings, it is, and always was, a matter of public record.

Criminal offences do not expire, and just because the police fail in duty to the public, the people can and will create justice. We must unite to restore the rule of law. It is the corrupt administration at fault, not the laws, our laws are the best in the world, the administration does not work. If we join together to take legal action, justice will be served.

ICCJ Jones. ICC Judge Jones. Clive Hugh Jones. Registrar Jones. Registrar Stephen Baister. Baister. ICCJ Baister. The home of Clive Hugh Jones.
Proceeds of crime? The 6 bedroom circa £1.3 million residence of Clive Hugh Jones – funded by you, the taxpayer?

The allegations against ICCJ Jones / Clive Hugh Jones of Acacia Road, Hampton, Middlesex

Between the 21st of November 2017 through to 26th March 2018, acting in excess of jurisdiction, we evidence in this article that Jones perverted the course of justice to prevent justice being served on Anthony Hannon, the Official Receiver of London and his co-conspirators, Middlesbrough FC, owned by Tory Teesside politician Steve Gibson and his lawyers, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, who instructed Ulick Staunton, purportedly a barrister, to advocate conspiracy to defraud, over 60 criminal offences were committed between them.

Corrupt senior officials colluded, interfering with the judiciary to achieve their common objective in preventing justice being served on their conspirators.

Jones has, we evidence, committed the offence of fraud by abuse of position, (s.4 Fraud Act 2006) on multiple counts and it is true that ICC Judge Jones has no jurisdiction to reside in judicial office.

All the decisions made by Jones since 21st December 2017 are, we allege, in law, void from the outset. The parties affected by any order made by Jones since then can apply to set aside. Judges that breach their oaths, are not judges at all.

The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 is long established law designed to protect the people from criminals and tyrants in judicial office. If a judge breaches his oath, acting with premeditated malicious intent as we evidence that Clive Hugh Jones has done, the offender is no longer by law afforded a position in judicial office. Judges may only occupy office whilst on good behaviour.

Judges who breach their oaths in office are not afforded immunity from civil or criminal prosecution

Clive Hugh Jones is afforded no protection by judicial immunity, so his victims can sue and privately prosecute. (See: Master of the Rolls, Denning LJ in Sirros v Moore 1975).

It is time for victims of corruption to get together and take legal action to sequestrate assets of these judicial fraudsters, as they have done to so many innocent parties. If you are one of those people, we want to hear from you.

With fellow corruptors at the helm of the justice system, including the (now former) Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab, who we have found to adopt “wilful blindness” to prevent justice being served on malfeasant office holders occupying judicial office, it is we the people who must restore the rule of law and lawfully dismantle the corrupt administration.

ICC Judge Jones is a registrar of the Insolvency & Companies Court, the same level as a Master or District Judge

Fundamentally, we evidence below that Clive Hugh Jones was knowingly acting outside his jurisdiction, working off the back of a nullity, the void EW winding up order, only to assist the offenders in concealing proven criminality.

Our investigation unravels and reveals an obvious pattern of flagrant criminal abuse and dishonest representation of the law to deprive creditors of their rights granted by statute. Jones was acting with genuine bias, only to assist criminals in furtherance of their fraud.

How ICC Judge Jones became involved

ICC Judge Clive Jones was installed by his co-conspirator, Chief Registrar Briggs, under instruction of the corrupt Tory Law Officers, the Attorney General and Solicitor General to preside over the case he had no jurisdiction to preside over, from the 15th of November 2017 onwards.

Jones was deployed to conceal proven criminality committed by Anthony Hannon, liquidator of Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW”) the Middlesbrough FC wind turbine sole purpose vehicle, and a criminal conspiracy between corrupt central government officials and judges designed to provide impunity to the offenders.

It is the duty of the Court, in the public interest, to punish delinquent insolvency office holders like Hannon who purport to act as officers of the Court whilst defrauding the creditors they are under a fiduciary duty to act for.

With the corrupt English administration at large, offenders acting with no jurisdiction purporting to be judges shield them from prosecution, whilst targeting their victims.

The background to the Middlesbrough FC wind turbine case – an indefensible claim vested in EW arising through mutual dealings

On the 30th of April 2015, acting maliciously to defraud the developer and directors of EW of over £770,000 invested in the project for the benefit of “constructing, connecting to the grid and operating” the turbine, Middlesbrough FC refused the grid connection for the wind turbine, preventing the developer from doing as intended by the lease, energy supply agreement and connection deed. Without a connection, the turbine cannot operate.

It was the purpose of the lease that the turbine was to be capable of commercial operation before rental payments became due. We evidence here that Middlesbrough FC and their corrupt lawyers, who the developer paid to complete those contracts, jointly negotiated and agreed the connection for the turbine in open email correspondence between September 2012 through to 4th of January 2013 when the connection offer was completed and finalised.

It was not until it was time to implement the connection that Middlesbrough FC refused the connection, but only after defrauding the developer of the investment made in the project from February 2015, including a £200,000 lease premium which they retained under false pretense.

The EW claim and the EEI claims are indefensible

Even if the Club did not “U-turn” and refuse the connection, they still unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their 25th June 2015 unwarranted demand.

Just 96-days into the 365-day period provided for in the lease free of rent EW was to enjoy from which to commission the wind turbine, the project suffered a delay of force majeure. The operative provision of force majeure in the lease and energy supply agreement suspended the contractual obligation to commission the turbine.

The delay of force majeure was not resolved by EW until 23rd of December 2015. EW had 296-days free of rent from which to commission the turbine from that date. Had the Club not then refused the connection on the 30th of April 2015, the first installment of rent in the sum of £15,000 was payable on the 17th September 2015.

On the 19th of August 2015, after vandalising the project, Middlesbrough FC unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their blackmail in the sum of £256,269.69 of which £75k was for rent that was not owed and £181,269.89 was for an invoice for energy supply that they were contractually prohibited from invoicing for. It really is that simple.

The EEI claim is even less complex, it is founded by the same claim, and legal assignment of the investment made in EW to EEI.

Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 affirms that the assignment is “effectual in law” when notice is given. Notice of assignment was served on the Club on the 30th of June 2015. Just because the Club and their corrupt lawyers lied about the assignment (committing perjury and fraud by failing to disclose information), that does nothing to excuse the criminality Jones concealed, it just aggravates.

Acting fraudulently in breach of their legal duty to disclose, the Club and their cohorts dishonestly failed to disclose the assignment, along with 171 pages of case critical witness evidence served on them with the demand that originated their without notice injunction proceeding.

The EEI claim of the demand was founded by abortive costs, which were assigned just 4-days after the Club blackmailed EW, threatening to forfeit the lease unless it paid a further £256,269.89 to them that was not owed, but only after first refusing the connection, on the 30th of April 2015 when the claim originated.

The void winding up proceeding against EW – Deliberate failure to apply the mandatory law of insolvency set off

Mutual dealings between Middlesbrough FC, EW and EEI resulted in indefensible claims against the Club, for the obvious reasons made clear above.

It was the pre-conceived plan of this cabal of corrupt judges, lawyers, politicians and public officials, to use the façade of insolvency law to defraud EW and its directors. Clive Hugh Jones became involved solely to do that, the second in the multiple layered judicial criminal conspiracy to defraud.

A winding up petition was presented against EW in June 2016. Uncoincidentally, just a few days prior to the Company serving its claim on Middlesbrough FC.

The winding up petition hearing first came before the then Chief Registrar, Stephen Baister, who adjourned the petition hearing in June 2016 so that EW directors could complete a C.V.A (Company Voluntary Arrangement) with its creditors. There were no creditors supporting the petition. The EW winding up petition hearing was adjourned until 19th of September 2016. During that period, EW directors completed the C.V.A with the legitimate EW creditors, of which its directors, directly and indirectly, were requisite majority creditors with over 85% of the voting interest.

On the 19th of September 2016, Ulick Staunton, barrister acting for the Club appeared, falsely representing that the Club was a creditor in the sum of £256,269.89. The court was under a mandatory legal duty to have set off the Club’s claim against the EW multi-million pound claim for unlawful forfeiture of the lease. Unsurprisingly, Baister failed to so to.

Registrar Stephen Baister – Intimately connected with Ulick Staunton, fraudulently abused his position

On the 10th of September 2016 Lupton Fawcett LLP, the lawyers acting for EW, filed a hard copy bundle with the Court setting out EW’s substantial claim for damages exceeding £10 million for the loss caused by Middlesbrough FC vandalising its sole trading interest.

The quantified and indefensible claim vested in EW, of which the sale of electricity from the turbine was guaranteed by OFGEM for a minimum rate over 20 years, was before Registrar Stephen Baister in hard copy 10-days prior to the hearing.

Stephen Baister. Chief Registrar Stephen Baister. Registrar Baister. Clive Hugh Jones perverted the course of justice. Royal Courts of Justice London.  ICCJ Jones. ICC Judge Jones.
Morally bankrupt & corrupt: The former Chief Insolvency Registrar Stephen Baister now of 3 Stone Law

It was indisputable that Baister knew that EW had a cross claim which extinguished the Club’s £256,269.89 blackmail which they sought to have proven in the winding up.

On the 19th of September 2016, during the winding up hearing, Baister was told precisely that, but he, like Jones and all the successive judicial fraudsters involved, were working in criminal conspiracy to assist Middlesbrough FC and their co-conspirator purported lawyers in defrauding creditors whilst perverting the course of public justice.

Deliberate discrimination and malfeasance in failing to act according to law

Baister, acting with intent to defraud, deliberately failed to apply the scheme of law relating to insolvency set off, rendering the EW winding up order of 19th September 2016, fundamentally defective and a nullity. Everything founded by the nullity, all orders made upon it thereafter and by whomever, are void ab initio (void from the outset).

The fact that the orders are a nullity did not stop the judicial fraudsters from continuing to create one void order after another, and they did so, without jurisdiction, only to aid and abet fraud whilst perverting the course of justice.

On the 28th of March 2018 EEI, parent of EW was then wound up based on the Club’s fraudulent £25,000 proceeds of crime and once again, at the heart of it, was the fact that the corrupt Court deliberately and maliciously failed in its mandatory legal duty to apply insolvency set off, knowing that EEI’s cross claim arising through mutual dealings, exceeded £770,000 plus standard interest accruing from 30th of June 2015, the date of the assignment. It was deliberate and premediated malfeasance.

On the 11th of April 2018, during a pre-determined hearing violating the rules of natural justice, the offender, Chief ICC Judge Briggs adjourned the proven rescission case against EEI, to prevent justice being served on the Club and their conspirers.

Briggs clearly knew he was a ringleader in the conspiracy since installing Jones to pervert the course of justice, just one-day prior to meeting with Hannon, the defendant on the 22nd of November 2017. Briggs knew he had no jurisdiction to hear it, so he affixed himself to the hearing, only to assist the offenders in furtherance of their proceeds of crime.

From the transcript of the 11th April 2018 EEI rescission hearing, it is evident that Staunton admitted that the EEI cross claim he first lied about and falsely represented during the 28th March 2018 EEI winding up order caused by Staunton’s criminal fraud “extinguishes the liability to pay £25,000”.

We evidence that Staunton and Nugee, a fellow judicial fraudster, acknowledged in Court, as recorded on the transcript that the EEI cross claim was the assigned investment, on 5th February 2018, proving beyond doubt that the Club, and their co-conspirators have known at all times there was never a debt owed to them by either EEI or EW, it was all fraud.

Chief ICC Judge Briggs knew there was no debt. ICC Judge Jones fraudulent abuse of position.
It was admitted by Staunton and confirmed by Briggs that there was never any debt on which the EEI petition was based, which is why the corrupt court failed to set off

It is evidenced above, from the transcript of the void proceeding before Nicholas Norman Briggs, that Staunton not only admitted that there was never any debt on which their petition was based, because their £25,000 proceeds of crime was extinguished by the EEI cross claim of £770,000 plus standard interest (over £1 million), but he lied, knowing that he once again committed fraud by false representation before “Judge Barber” on the 28th of March 2018.

On the 28th of March 2018, as recorded on the EEI winding up proceeding transcript below, is proven that in absence of EEI representatives, Staunton committed fraud by false representation by lying and stating that the subsidiary has a significant claim for damages against Middlesbrough”, but it never brought any proceedings.

It is proven below, by Staunton’s own prior admission and agreed by a High Court Judge on the 5th of February 2018, his actual state of mind as to knowledge of the correct factual circumstances was that the cross claim was the investments assigned from EW to EEI.

ICC Judge Jones / AKA Clive Hugh Jones / Registrar Jones is proven to have committed fraud by abuse of position whilst perverting the course of justice.   - The admission from Staunton on Court on 05/02/2018 that he knew the assignment was was cross claim.
Page 70 of the 88-page transcript of the 5th of February 2018 hearing before Nugee J

It is proven that at all times since 9th of January 2017 Staunton has been aware that EEI’s cross claim (the assigned investment) extinguished any claim his client, the Club and their conspirators could bring.

In our article exposing the criminal fraud by failing to disclose information in conspiracy by the offenders on 2 counts between 9th of January 2017 through to 5th of February 2018, we explained how their £25,000 proceeds of crime originated. Staunton and his conspirators then used the proceeds of crime to commit more fraud.

We prove incontrovertibly that the English judiciary assisted Middlesbrough FC and their conspirators in using the façade of the corrupt court and insolvency law to defraud creditors whilst perverting the course of public justice.

ICC Judge Jones - Clive Hugh Jones concealing serious criminal offences whilst acting in excess of jurisdiction.  The 28th March 2018 hearing transcript, page 1.
ICC Judge Jones concealing proven criminal fraud in abuse of his position.  The transcript of the hearing of 28th March 2018 revealing Staunton's fraud.
Pages 1 & 2 of the 3 page 28th March 2018 EEI winding up hearing founded by Staunton’s criminal fraud by false representation & £25,000 proceeds of crime

It is proven that Staunton had committed two counts of criminal fraud by false representation to defraud EEI directors and creditors of over £1 million using their proceeds of crime which originated from their criminal offending between the 9th of January 2017 through until the 5th of February 2018 (the first hearing on notice in those proceedings.

The Club and their co-conspirators were under a continuing legal duty to disclose information right up until 5th February 2018, yet they persistently and dishonestly failed to disclose the notice of assignment and the Penningtons Manches LLP complaint of fraud by failing to disclose information of 11th of January 2017, which expressly proved that there was never any consent by EEI to pay the Club’s fraudulently obtained costs anyway. That fraud is how their £25,000 originated.

Even if Middlesbrough FC’s claim was legitimate, the Court were still under a mandatory legal duty to have applied set off conferred in rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, doing so would have determined that there was no debt on which the EEI winding up petition was based.

The sum of the assigned investments (£770,000 plus standard interest accruing from 30th June 2015 when notice was served), was to be paid to EEI creditors as a dividend pursuant to rule 14.25(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016, once again, the corrupt judiciary aided and abetted the fraud through deliberate failure to judge and to have administered the law. The EEI creditors have been defrauded of over £1 million, the asset that was to be mandaritly paid to his sole creditor, Mr Millinder.

Lawless judicial fraudsters distributed throughout the English justice system

We prove, conclusively, that all the judges involved in this case, are lawless fraudsters who have grossly abused their positions of trust to assist the offenders.

Sir Geoffrey Vos the two bit fraudster "Master of the Rolls" head of civil justice for England & Wales

Sir Geoffrey Vos, (pictured), the now “Master of the Rolls”, an offender still masquerading as head of civil justice for England and Wales, perverted the course of justice on the 9th of February 2019 and stated this at paragraph 104 of his void judgment:

“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 fraudconspiracy or misdealing that Mr Millinder has made”

At paragraph 105, knowing that the same Court handed down judgment of 5th of February 2018 affirming Club unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their £256,269.89 blackmail, of which £75k was rent that was not owed and £181,269.89 was for energy supply when there was no “entitlement to agreed output” (agreement by EW to supply power), Geoffrey Vos fraudulently abused his position, “stepping into the shoes of Jones”, but yet it was the c£4.1 million claim Vos was asked to remove.

Vos, like Jones, sustained the Club’s c£4.1 million proof of debt which arose solely as a result of the the Court’s maladministration. The judicial fraudsters were sustaining the fraud by false representation, using it in the same way as the principal offenders did, to defraud creditors of their assets and of democratic rights law grants them:

On 25th June 2015, Middlesbrough invoiced Empowering Wind MFC for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89

Vos knew that £181,269.89 of the demand was for energy supply, when the terms of the completed contract stipulated that there was no agreement by EW to supply any power and, that any “invoicing & payment” was contractually prohibited.

Vos had in his possession Staunton’s 12th November 2018 skeleton argument for the hearing that Vos promptly adjourned on 14th of November 2018, where Staunton “U-turned” and retracted the claims he and his client brought against both EW and EEI.

Vos perverted the course of justice, asking Staunton to retract and replace his skeleton less that admission, after Mr Millinder expressly informed him of it on the 30th of November 2018.

It was the c£4.1 million fraud by false representation that Vos was asked to deal with, of which over £4 million was for energy supply, and likewise, the application notice itself told him precisely that. Meticulous detail he says?

In 2020 the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land affirmed that the legal duty of the office holder to apply insolvency set off is mandatory

In Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 the Supreme Court affirmed that the legal duty of the courts to apply insolvency set off is mandatory. Paragraph 29 of the Supreme Court judgment affirms that:

the statutory regime for set-off in insolvency, now to be found in IR 14.25 operates upon an altogether more comprehensive and rigorous basis. First, it applies to every type of pre-liquidation mutual dealing, and also to secured, contingent and future debts: see IR 14.25(1), (2), (6) and (7). Secondly, whereas legal or equitable set-off is essentially optional, taking effect only if the cross-claim is pleaded as a defence to the claim, insolvency set-off is mandatory, and takes effect upon the commencement of the insolvency (the “cut-off date”). It is said to be self-executing, and for some purposes the original cross-claims are replaced by a single claim for the balance: see IR 14.25(3) and (4).

Baister and the corrupt, politically controlled court of injustice deliberately evaded the entire scheme of law conferred in Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 and they did so, acting in conspiracy to make gains for Middlesbrough FC and to cause most serious and protracted loss to the EW and EEI creditors of whom they owe a fiduciary duty. That conduct, in itself, is a very serious and aggravated fraud.

The Club never had a claim to prove, any informed lay person could determine, just be reading the contracts said to have originated their alleged claim, that there was no debt owed to the Club. The fraudulent claim was deployed and the judges intentionally manifested the fraud, aiding, abetting and engaging in criminal acts of concealment.

This is how the English courts operate, the judicial fraudsters work to originate “something on nothing“, contrary to natural justice and the rule of law.

Even if Middlesbrough FC’s claim were genuine, their claims were all to have been mandatorily set off against EW’s indefensible claim for unlawful forfeiture of the lease, giving rise to a single net balance after accounting set off. It was for that reason Baister deliberately failed to apply the mandatory law, knowing that the Club never had any claim against EW. They repeated it again with EEI, with the obvious motive being solely to defraud creditors of both companies.

When they finished defrauding and concealing criminal property amassed through their conspiracy, they deploy void, without jurisdiction restraint orders, founded by their own fraud and void acts, as their corrupt practice deployed in an attempt to further conceal their criminality.

Paragraph 30 of the Supreme Court judgment affirms that:

“The identification of the net balance is to be ascertained by the taking of an account: see IR 14.25(2). If there is no dispute as to the existence and amount of the claims and cross-claims this is in practice a matter of simple arithmetic, the net balance being the difference between the aggregate of the claims and the aggregate of the cross-claims. But if any of the claims and cross-claims are in dispute, then those disputes will need first to be resolved, by reference to the individual merits of each, before the arithmetic resumes: see again Stein v Blake (supra) per Lord Hoffmann at 255E-G”.

Acting illegally in abuse of his position on the 1st of December 2016 Hannon accepted the Club’s fraudulent £256k proof of debt claim

Rule 14.25(3) of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016 determines that only after applying mandatory set off by taking an account due from the creditor or from the company to the creditor, can a creditor go on to prove a debt (claim for a debt against the company):

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

On the 1st of December 2016, due to the fraud committed by Stephen Baister and Staunton acting in conspiracy to defraud, Robin Bloom, a purported lawyer and general legal counsel for Middlesbrough FC submitted a proof of debt claim against EW to Hannon in the sum of £256,269.89, the sum that was to be set off by the EW claim.

Rule 14.25(4) and 14.25(5) fall in line as the next part of the Insolvency Rules 2016 which determines that if money is owed to the Company (EW) after taking account for set off, then that claim must be paid to the company as a dividend to creditors.

ICC Judge Jones and his fellow conspirators, right the way up to the now Master of the Rolls, Geoffrey Vos, conspired to defraud creditors whilst violating every applicable law in the process, acting off the back of one void order after another, then acting in conspiracy to prevent justice being served on themselves and their fellow racketeers (perverting the course of justice).

In Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147 the House of Lords established the “collateral fact doctrine”, that any error of law made by a public body will make its decision a nullity and that a statutory exclusion clause (known as an ouster clause) does not deprive the courts from their jurisdiction in judicial review and at paragraph 171 Lord Justice Reid identified a non exhaustive list of circumstances constituting without jurisdiction acts that render the proceeding a nullity.

Deliberate failure of the judicial administration to apply mandatory insolvency set off aided and abetted conspiracy to defraud, a fraud on the Court and serious interference with the course of public justice, renders the proceedings in respect of both EW and EEI fundamentally defective, a nullity.

20/12/2016 – A further fraudulent proof of debt claim arising from the first, in the sum of £583,582.41

On the 20th of December 2016, Bloom of Middlesbrough FC submitted a further fraudulent proof of debt claim against EW, this time in the sum of £541,308.89 of which Hannon, acting as liquidator had a continuing legal duty to have set off against the EW claim.

It is evidenced however that Hannon was working only to defraud the creditors of EW of whom he owed a fiduciary duty, they all were, and alongside the highest echelons of the judiciary the Insolvency Service and BEIS, they all went along with it.

On the 9th of January 2017, Middlesbrough FC and their co-conspirators, Womble Bond Dickinson and Ulick Staunton attended an ex-parte (without notice) hearing to obtain an injunction, preventing EEI (the parent company of EW) from issuing a winding up petition against the Club for the indisputable sum of the demand originated by legal assignment of the debt to EEI from EW on the 30th of June 2015, exactly 2-months after the Club refused the connection. There was a legal duty of full and frank disclosure.

Unsurprisingly, the Club could not defend the claim for unlawful forfeiture of the lease, so, acting dishonestly they committed fraud by failing to disclose information, a criminal offence, and dishonestly withheld 172-pages of witness evidence whilst Robin Bloom lied about the assignment originating the statutory demand, committing perjury in his witness statement in tandem. That’s how then Registrar Jones, now, white-collar criminal, ICCJ Jones / Clive Hugh Jones became involved.

On 9th January 2017 Staunton admits that “Force Majeure has effect” but lied and denied all knowledge of the force majeure clause in the lease

On the 9th of January 2017, as recorded on the transcript of the ex-parte hearing Staunton, acting for Middlesbrough FC admitted that no claims could be established by the Club because, in his own words “Force Majeure does have effect“, in respect of the energy supply agreement:

ICCJ Jones. Clive Hugh Jones fraudulently abused his position and perverted the course of justice. Stephen Baister.  Insolvency & Companies Court
Transcript of the ex-parte hearing on 09/01/2017

We evidence in the transcript that Staunton was concealing the fact that £181,269.89 of the Club’s unwarranted demand was an invoice for energy supply. He wanted to avoid that, because he had admitted no claims could be established for energy supply. By then, the Club’s purported claims grew from £256,269.89 to £541,308.89.

02/02/2017 – The third fraudulent proof of debt claim, in the sum of £4,111.874.75 originating from the first!

Exactly 24-days later, Julian Gill of Womble Bond Dickinson, a purported insolvency lawyer who instructed Staunton to attend the ex-parte hearing on the 9th of January 2017 submitted yet another proof of debt claim against EW, this time in the sum of £4,111.874.75, which was likewise, entirely fraudulent, but moreover, was to be set off against the EW claim, which Hannon deliberately failed to do.

Hannon made a decision not to apply statutory set off when he is bound to have done so. Likewise, Hannon dishonestly abused his position by failing to seek directions when statute provides a legal duty for him to have done so in respect of the proof of debt.

The statutory legal duty under section 168 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was breached by Hannon in abuse of his position (Fraud by abuse of position)

Office-holders in insolvency proceedings have statutory powers to seek directions from the court in relation to the performance of their duties deriving from section 168(2)(a)of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”), which confers a legal duty on them to do so:

168 Supplementary powers (England and Wales).
(1) This section applies in the case of a company which is being wound up by the court in England and Wales.
(2) The liquidator may seek a decision on any matter from the company’s creditors or contributories; and must seek a decision on a matter — (a) from the company’s creditors, if requested to do so by one-tenth in value of the creditors; (b) from the company’s contributories, if requested to do so by one-tenth in value of the contributories.]
(3) The liquidator may apply to the court (in the prescribed manner) for directions in relation to any particular matter arising in the winding up.

Mr Millinder is requisite majority creditor of EW and on the 27th of June 2017 Hannon was requested in writing to obtain directions from a High Court Judge in respect of the fraudulent proof of debt claim he admitted which exceeded £4.1 million, Hannon deliberately failed to do so in breach of his duty to creditors.

Hannon breached his fiduciary duty to creditors by deliberately failing in his duty conferred in section 168(2)(a) of the IA 1986 on 27/06/2017. Fraud by breach of fiduciary duty is a fraud, but Hannon’s dishonest abuse goes way beyond civil fraud and into the criminal remit.

From 9th January 2017 through to 15th of November 2017 Hannon was repeatedly told the Club’s claims were false

Hannon, who occupied a fiduciary duty to creditors to “verify the creditor’s true position” prior to admission of a proof of debt against the company of which he was appointed as liquidator, accepted the 3rd proof of debt from the Club, knowing it was entirely fraudulent, his decision was to deliberately and dishonestly act against the interests of creditors whilst concealing the serious criminal fraud he knew had been committed by Middlesbrough FC on 9th January 2017.

The EEI application which came before then Registrar Clive Hugh Jones was because Hannon made the decision to accept 3 random fraudulent proof of debt claims, wilfully failing to perform on statutory duties, to prevent meetings of creditors taking place, when the general body of creditors wanted to replace him.

The 15th November 2017 application

EEI, Parent Company of EW made an application as an aggrieved creditor pursuant to rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 for the Court to remove the £4.1 million fraudulent claim and to exclude Middlesbrough FC from submitting further fraudulent claims, where Hannon, the delinquent liquidator with whom they were conspiring, refused to interfere in the matter.

Prior to making the application, the directors of EEI sought written advice and instructed counsel to serve a letter of claim on Hannon asking him to perform on his statutory duties by end of September 2017. Hannon’s decision was to do nothing.

Law affirms that Jones had no jurisdiction to hear any part of the application that sought to deal with the offender’s criminal conspiracy

The application sought to deal with fraud by failing to disclose information during the without notice financial injunction proceeding and to deal with the criminal fraud by false representation all originating from the 25th June 2015 blackmail in the sum of £256,269.89 by the Club which was then used as an excuse to unlawfully forfeit the lease. Given the criminal nature of the allegations, it was expressly requested that the application be heard by a High Court Judge.

Practice Direction 2B of the Civil Procedure Rules, the law which governs how civil justice is to be administered, section 2 “The High Court” determines that Clive Hugh Jones, a registrar / master was precluded by law from hearing the application of 15th November 2017, it sought to deal with criminal conspiracy:

3.1 A Master or District Judge may not make orders or grant interim remedies

(a) relating to the liberty of the subject;

(b) relating to criminal proceedings or matters except procedural applications in appeals to the High Court (including appeals by case stated) under any enactment;

Law precluded ICCJ Jones, or Registrar Jones as he was then known from hearing the application, therefore, aside from the fact that the originating EW winding up order is a nullity, Jones was knowingly acting in excess of jurisdiction and his orders are void on this additional ground, amongst others. That mattered, not, it was Chief Registrar Briggs, a close associate of both Hannon and Staunton who ensured Jones was installed as the second layer in the conspiracy.

On the 21st of December 2017, Jones went on to hear the application he had no jurisdiction to hear. We obtained a copy of the transcript of that hearing to adduce as evidence to prove beyond doubt that Jones is a criminal who has fraudulently abused his position whilst acting outside his jurisdiction.

We refer below to the sealed second witness statement in the application that sought to deal with the criminal fraud by failing to disclose information, fraudulent abuse of position by Hannon, blackmail, perjury on 2 counts and 3 counts of fraud by false representation in proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 which criminalises any such activity:

Registrar Jones aka Clive Hugh Jones / ICCJ Jones ICC Judge Jones perverted the course of justice.

It is evidenced that the second witness statement of EEI bears a seal of 16th November 2017, a day after the application was filed. Jones did read the witness statement, therefore he knew he had no jurisdiction to hear any part of the application that deals with serious criminal fraud. He did so anyway, only to pervert the course of justice.

Knowing that he had no jurisdiction and that the application was expressly to be heard by a High Court Judge, in the early part of the hearing of 21st December 2017 Jones even admitted he had no jurisdiction, because, in his own words, he “can’t judge“:

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.

THE REGISTAR: I just need to know if he’s right or wrong.

THE REGISTRAR: I may not even know that, but it’s probably easier just to sort of say, “He’s wrong when he says that.” 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.

It is evidenced that the application was explicit in dealing with criminality, but Jones was installed by his conspirator, Chief ICC Judge Briggs, who likewise had no jurisdiction.

Just one day prior to meeting with Hannon at Staunton’s chambers, Briggs “crossed out” the application where EEI requested that the case, rightfully, be heard by a High Court Judge.

When fraud is an issue, dishonesty does matter. The correct test for dishonesty that applies equally in both civil and criminal proceedings is the one-stage test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67.

In relation to the claim vested in EW that was to be mandatorily set off against all three of Middlesbrough FC’s fraudulent proofs of debt, Jones stated this:

THE REGISTRAR: So, at the moment, ignoring the claim that the company may wish to bring, so assume that’s not on the cards at the moment

Jones knew that Baister ignored the claim that was to be set off, and he sought to ignore it again to assist the Club in sustaining their £4.1 million fraud by false representation deployed to defraud creditors. Jones was as much part of the criminal conspiracy as the primary offenders.

Jones was told that Mr Millinder, acting for EEI, wanted to exercise democratic rights granted by law in removing the obviously fraudulent proof of debt that came about solely as a result of the corrupt Court’s part in the conspiracy by failing to administer the entire scheme of law conferred in rule 14.25:

MR MILLINDER: I made an application under rule 14.11 for the court to exclude the proof on the grounds that that proof is a false misrepresentation, ie we don’t owe them the money.

THE REGISTRAR: But, firstly, that only applies as and when a proof is adjudicated on for the purposes of distribution of funds — not going to happen

It is evidenced from the transcript (page 9 of 33) that Jones himself committed fraud by false representation, lying and stating that rule 14.11 only applies to proofs that have been admitted for dividend.

At paragraph 27 of the judgment made by Jones on the 26th of March 2018, he stated this:

He considers it to be a free-standing right to ask the Court to exclude the Second Respondent’s proof without a decision having been made by the First Respondent”.

In an email to all the EW creditors from Hannon on the 28th of September 2017 at 08.15AM, Hannon himself stated that creditors would have to apply to the Court to decide, proving that it was Hannon’s decision to choose not to interfere in the matter:

“There is no process under the Act whereby the creditors actually “vote” to exclude any proof of debt. You can write to me and I will note your objection but, otherwise, you must ask the Court to decide

Jones had all this evidence put before him, including the letter of claim served on Hannon by Prospect Law, which set out in detail the EW claim against Middlesbrough FC and expressly requested that Hannon makes a decision and does certain things, which he failed to do, those were:

“…reject in whole MFC’s proof of debt form lodged on 2 February 2017 in respect of a claim of £4,111,874.75”
“That, without prejudice to the foregoing and for the avoidance of any doubt, the Official Receiver disclaims the ESA”.
Agree in principle to an assignment of EWMFC’s claims to an entity under the control of our client, and enter into discussions with our client concerning the terms of such an assignment”.

Jones knew, or ought to have known that the duty of Hannon to apply set off is ongoing, notwithstanding the fact that over £4 million was fraudulently claimed for energy supply, increasing from £181,269.89 in less than 3 months, when any “entitlement to agreed output” (agreement by EW to supply power) was conditional upon their “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” which the Club refused.

Any lay person could determine, in less than 5 minutes, that over £4 million of the claim is entirely false. These people purport to be judges and lawyers!

Jones knew that by law, Middlesbrough FC never had a claim to prove were it not for the malfeasance and acts of corruption in failing to apply mandatory law in set off. Were it not for the Court’s own fraud, the proofs of debt, all 3 of them, would never have arisen and EW creditors would have been mandatorily paid the indefensible claim, a substantial asset, pursuant to rule 14.25(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016. They were all conspiring to ensure that did not happen, and they did precisely that.

Likewise, Jones knew that Hannon made the decision to do nothing but conspire with the Club and his co-conspirators to defraud creditors who he owes a fiduciary duty whilst committing no less than 26 criminal offences in the process. Jones covered it all up, and successive white-collar criminals acting in judicial office, followed suit in an aggravated conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

At paragraph 29(b) of his 26th March 2018 judgment, Jones lied once again and sought to dishonestly represent the entire scheme of law conferred in Part 14 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, the part which deals with “CLAIMS BY AND DISTRIBUTIONS TO CREDITORS IN ADMINISTRATION,WINDING UP AND BANKRUPTCY”:

The arguments’ lack of merit is all the more apparent from the scheme of Rules 14.2 – 14/11. They deal with: (i) the proving of a debt for dividend”

We provide a short summary of the law… Rule 14.2 and 14.3 is under Chapter 2 dealing with all “Creditors’ claims in administration, winding up and bankruptcy”;

14.2.—(1) All claims by creditors except as provided in this rule, are provable as debts against the company or bankrupt, whether they are present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or sounding only in damages.

Proving a debt
14.3.—(1) A creditor wishing to recover a debt must submit a proof to the office-holder

In the Prospect Law letter of claim dated 18th of August 2017, served on Hannon, Edmund Robb, leading specialist counsel stated that:

“A creditor may also apply to court for a proof to be excluded or for the amount claimed to be reduced if it thinks the proof has been improperly admitted or ought to be reduced (Rule 14.11). A creditor can only apply under rule 14.11 if the office holder has declined to interfere in the matter (Rule 14.11(1)(b)”.

It is self-evident that Hannon declined to interfere in the matter, which is when rule 14.11 becomes operative. Going back to the transcript of the corrupted, without jurisdiction hearing before the criminal offender, Registrar Clive Hugh Jones, when speaking of the proof of debt, as recorded on the transcript, Jones stated this:

THE REGISTRAR: “I’m therefore going to send my report to Companies House. The company will be dissolved within,” I can’t remember but let’s say three months —

MR HANNON: Three months.

THE REGISTRAR: There we are, three months. And then the company is dissolved and it just doesn’t exist.

THE REGISTRAR: It’s as though it never existed and therefore the proofs of debt which have been sent in fallaciously or otherwise apply to something which doesn’t even exist, so there

When then talking about the misconduct on the part of Hannon, (fraud) which, by his own admission Jones had no jurisdiction to hear, because he cannot judge, and in relation to Hannon’s decision to ignore the Prospect Law letter of claim asking Hannon to remove the proof of debt, Jones stated this:

MR MILLINDER: Have you seen the letter dated 18 August, addressed to Mr Hannon from Prospect Law?
THE REGISTRAR: I think I have, yes. I’m pretty sure I have. I’ve seen a letter from them setting out the details of your case.
MR MILLINDER: What do you think of that?
THE REGISTRAR: Well, I’m not going to comment on that. It’s not for me to comment. But the point is that we haven’t got to the stage of removing it. All right. We’re just keeping him here at the moment. The point is, at the moment, that it’s for him to decide whether or not to proceed but if he’s going to proceed there’s no doubt that he will have to have a very large sum of money offered to him.

Jones invented the law, making a determination that Mr Millinder would have to deposit a “very large sum of money” with Hannon, the criminal offender, before Jones performed on his duty he was obligated to perform on by law, under rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, when he never had any jurisdiction to hear it in the first place.

It is self evident that Jones was working for the offenders to sustain their c£4.1 million fraud by false representation, a criminal act of fraud, designed to keep the assets that were to be mandatorily paid to creditors pursuant to rule 14.25(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016, beyond reach of those creditors.

It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Clive Hugh Jones is a fraudster who has acted to defraud creditors and in conspiracy to pervert the course of justice between 21st December 2017 through until 5th of October 2018 when Jones sought to make Mr Millinder personally liable for fraudulently obtained costs in the sum exceeding £45,000 originated by his void orders and criminal abuse.

It was just 5-weeks later, on the 12th of November 2018, at paragraph 37 of his skeleton that Staunton then retracted the claims altogether:

“Rs” meaning “Respondents”, his client Middlesbrough FC and Womble Bond Dickinson do not bring any claim against A (Applicant), or Empowering (“EW”) or Earth Energy (“EEI”).

Even more bizarrely, Staunton seeks to “reincarnate” the proceeds of crime, the nullity £25,000 when he had admitted in court, as recorded on the transcript of the 11th April 2018 hearing that:

It becomes crystal clear as to why the corrupt court failed to apply mandatory set off of the claims against the Club vested in both companies.

Anyone reading this article will conclude that the judges are as much part of the fraud as the primary offenders.

In the next article we will expose how Jones has inflicted his criminal abuse on various unrelated parties, defrauding them of their democratic rights vested in the law, whilst fraudulently abusing his position.

We have contacted Clive Hugh Jones, Nicholas Norman Briggs, Stephen Baister and Geoffrey Charles Vos, the purported Master of the Rolls for comment on this investigatory article. We shall publish any comments in the follow up.

UPDATE: 18th September 2022: As of today, 20-days after we first published the article, the accused have all failed to respond. One cannot defend or deny what is already proven, the evidence and the law does not deceive.

Help us to help you, like, comment and share this article far and wide.

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
UK corruption

Mr Justice Fancourt, Nugee & High Court criminal conspiracy

UK corruption

Scot Young murder insolvency & the missing £4 billion estate

UK corruption

Chief Registrar Briggs & insolvency court corruption

UK corruption

Judge Prince & Currer of Newcastle "Something on nothing"

Sign up for our Newsletter updates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Worth reading...
Lord Justice Nugee & the UK’s judicial fraudsters
error: Alert: All our content is protected - You are prohibited from copying !