Mr Justice Fancourt, AKA Timothy Miles Fancourt (left) was appointed in office of High Court Judge on the 11th of January 2018. Mr Justice Nugee (right) was appointed on the 7th of October 2013.
Nugee was first in line, we evidence that His Lordship participated in a protracted criminal conspiracy. Fancourt was the backstop, following on with dishonest concealment, and defeating the ends of justice 33-months later in a replication of the criminality we expose in this article.
Sworn under solemn oath to act at all times “according to law” and to administer justice “without fear, favour, affection or ill-will“, Timothy Miles Fancourt, Christopher George Nugee and their co-conspirators, all still in judicial office, are evidenced in our series of articles, to do quite different.
The constitutional oath of judicial office is long established statute, designed to regulate the conduct of judges, to ensure independence and fairness. The oath is sworn to protect the people from judicial tyranny, and judges are only afforded roles in judicial office whilst on good behaviour. Judges who breach their constitutional oaths are not judges.
It is our learned opinion that the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice, the Law Ministers and other public officials involved in this case, those with a responsibility for administration of justice, have broken the law, abusing their positions by failing to maintain judicial independence, acting contrary to law.
S.3(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 determines that they are all under a legal duty in the public interest:
“(1) The Lord Chancellor, other Ministers of the Crown and all with responsibility for matters relating to the judiciary or otherwise to the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary”
We evidence in this conclusive 2-part sequel how Nugee and then Fancourt perverted the course of justice, fraudulently abusing their positions, diminishing the law on full and frank disclosure whilst concealing multiple offences of criminal fraud in conspiracy.
We articulate the case in a way that any lay person can understand, starting with proving how Nugee, now promoted to Lord Justice Nugee, acted to prevent justice being served on Middlesbrough FC and their conspirators who are proven to have committed two counts of fraud by failing to disclose information and one count of section 5 Perjury between 9th January 2017 through until 5th of February 2018.
Systemic corruption in the UK has spiraled out of control. Police forces, regulatory authorities and officials throughout the justice system operate by way of inter-agency collusion, corrupt practices prevail, enshrined in secrecy and concealment. Those at the top, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General are the main instigators.
We expose a taxpayer funded criminal racketeering enterprise at the heart of central government, and how they have defeated the rule of law and long established English constitutional principles. England’s courts have been weaponised. Fraud, injustice, lawlessness, and gross human rights abuses prevail.
Our conclusive investigation proves categorically that nobody can rely on the courts of England & Wales to administer the law fairly or impartially. Many of the senior judges are proven to be criminal offenders, yet under this vile kleptocracy, they remain in office.
1. Senior judicial office holders of the High Court & Court of Appeal are promoted courtesy of the taxpayer for “following orders”
Timothy Miles Fancourt, Lord Justice Nugee, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Snowden, Lord Justice Easthope-Davis, Mr Justice Miles, Mr Justice Murray, Mr Justice Swift of the Administrative Court, Lady Justice Andrews, HHJ Pelling QC, HHJ Fanning, HHJ Prince, Chief ICC Judge Nicholas Briggs, ICC Judge Jones and District Judge Currer all colluded with corrupt public officials in the Attorney General’s Office, the orchestrators of this serious aggravated criminal conspiracy.
Michael Ellis KC MP, was recently made Attorney General. We evidence in this and our next article how Ellis and his office was the main ringleader, concealing no less than 60 criminal offences in this case. Attorney Generals are not supposed to conceal crime. Ellis swore an oath to the King to act “according to law”. This traitor knew he had already broken the law, both criminal and civil law.
We evidence how, with all acting in excess of jurisdiction, the most senior judges fraudulently abused their positions, acting with ill-will to defraud company creditors in proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 whilst perverting the course of justice to prevent justice being served on fellow, amoral white-collar criminals masquerading as lawyers. The motive was to prevent justice being served on Middlesbrough FC and their conspirators, because the Club is owned by Steve Gibson O.B.E. the corrupt Tory Teesside politician with close ties to senior Cabinet Office Ministers and MPs.
2. Petition to H.R.H King Charles the 3rd for investigation of senior public and judicial officials
We present our evidence to H.R.H King Charles the 3rd, requesting that His Majesty exercise the Royal Prerogative to remove the offenders from judicial and public office by Order in Council, for the good of our country, the public interest and our future generations.
We, the British people have the inalienable constitutional right to be governed justly in accord with the rule of law, and to enjoy those rights granted by the laws of England and Wales, a birthright gift every British citizen is entitled. It is proven, in this case, and many others, that the corrupt administration are incapable of governing according to law.
Publication of our completed and conclusive investigatory reporting creates public awareness and instills appetite for complete reform of the governance of England and Wales, with more stringent measures implemented to eradicate corrupt public officials and those who abuse their powers or breach their constitutional oaths of office.
“I am deeply aware of this great inheritance and of the duties and heavy responsibilities of sovereignty which have now passed to me.
In taking up these responsibilities, I shall strive to follow the inspiring example I have been set in UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT and to seek the peace, harmony and prosperity of the peoples of these islands and of the Commonwealth realms and territories throughout the world“– HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS KING CHARLES 3RD
3. The criminal offence of fraud by failing to disclose information – Section 3 Fraud Act 2006
Law creates the offence when there is a legal duty to disclose information and a person dishonestly fails to disclose information with intent to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another:
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information A person is in breach of this section if he — (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information — (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
A person who is guilty of fraud is liable — (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
In conspiracy, we prove that Middlesbrough FC, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP and Ulick Staunton, counsel acting for the Club, committed the indictable offence on 4 counts. Twice between 9th of January 2017 through to 5th February 2018 and twice between 23rd of October 2020 through to 6th of November 2020.
In our investigation we found that Nugee is a close personal associate of Staunton, they live just 5-minutes’ walk apart in Islington, and they socialise together. Knowingly conflicted and acting in excess of jurisdiction, it is apparent that Nugee came in on the 5th of February 2018 just in for the cover up.
We evidence how Nugee, acting as a High Court Judge, perverted the course of justice to conceal serious and obvious prolific criminal offending.
3.1. The actus reus of the primary offence – Fraud by failing to disclose information
The CPS website defines the actus reus and mens rea. We quote:
There is no requirement that the failure to disclose must relate to “material” or “relevant “information, nor is there any de minimis provision. If a Defendant disclosed 90% of what he was under a legal duty to disclose but failed to disclose the (possibly unimportant) remaining 10%, the actus reus of the offence could be complete. Under such circumstances the Defendant would have to rely on the absence of dishonesty. Such cases can be prosecuted under the Act if the public interest requires it, though such cases will be unusual.
It is no defence that the Defendant was ignorant of the existence of the duty, neither is it a defence in itself to claim inadvertence or incompetence. In that respect, the offence is one of strict liability. The defence must rely on an absence of dishonesty and the burden, of course, lies with the prosecutor.
3.2. The long established legal duty to disclose in ex-parte injunction proceedings
In all ex-parte (without notice) financial injunction applications, there is a strict legal duty on the applicant to make full and frank disclosure of all material information and facts relevant to the case.
In (UKIP) v Braine & Ors  EWHC 1794 (QB) paragraph 69 of the judgment, the High Court put it this way:
“The duty is not limited to not “hoodwinking” the Judge, or avoiding misrepresentations that would change the outcome. Nor is the duty discharged by putting a document in a bundle. The obligation is to disclose that which, if present, the defendants would have wanted the Court to know; and it extends to drawing attention to the most important features of the evidence or law that could undermine the application.”
3.3. The public interest in prosecuting the offenders
Broadly, the presumption is that the public interest requires prosecution where there has been a contravention of the criminal law. From a civil justice perspective, there is also overwhelming public interest in preserving and maintaining the strict rule on full and frank disclosure. The court is to be penal by nature.
There is a public justice obligation in prosecuting corrupt politicians and their lawyers who abuse court process, affronting the rule by using ex-parte injunction proceedings to defraud.
Reflecting the public interest duty of the Court in properly investigating and penalising any non-disclosure in breach of the law on full and fair disclosure, we refer in this article to some of the many authorities:
In The Arena Corporation Limited v Schroeder  EWHC 1089, the High Court established several key principles in relation to any non-disclosure during without notice proceedings.
In that case the Court first conducted the inescapable diligent standard of review to preserve the public interest in maintaining the rule on full and frank disclosure. A review that was deliberately absent during both mooted trials before Nugee and then Fancourt.
There was in fact no trial at all, for any informed lay person can determine that what the offenders have done was dishonest. The judges deliberately failed to perform regardless, twice, and the only ones penalised were the victims of their fraud.
At paragraph 14.1 of the Arena judgment:
Whether there was material non-disclosure or misrepresentation on the without notice application, and the extent and seriousness of it in the context of the case as it was then presented. This question essentially turns on an examination of the materials placed before the court on 5 December 2002 and an assessment (informed by all the material now available) of whether there was culpable non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Where Nugee and Fancourt were concerned, that essential examination was deliberately absent. English Judges that don’t judge and trials don’t try, a case of “justice subject to status”, not what you know, but who you know.
From paragraph 113, the High Court relied on the relevant legal principles established by the Court of Appeal in Brink’s Mat Ltd. v. Elcombe  1 WLR 1350, whilst setting some of its own in relation to the standard of review required by the judiciary:
“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”
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;
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;
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;
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;
The application of the principle should not be carried to extreme lengths or be allowed to become the instrument of injustice;
The jurisdiction is penal in nature and the courts should therefore have regard to the proportionality between the punishment and the offence;
In Brink’s Mat Ltd. v. Elcombe  1 WLR 1350, Lord Justice Gibson in the Court of Appeal expressed the duty of full and frank disclosure as below:
(1) The duty of the applicant is to make “a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts:” see Rex v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, Ex parte Princess Edmond de Polignac  1 KB 486, 514, per Scrutton LJ.
(2) The material facts are those which it is material for the judge to know in dealing with the application as made: materiality is to be decided by the court and not by the assessment of the applicant or his legal advisers: see Rex v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners , per Lord Cozens-Hardy MR, at p.504, citing Dalglish v. Jarvie (1850) 2 Mac & G 231, 238, and Browne-Wilkinson J in Thermax Ltd. v. Schott Industrial Glass Ltd.  FSR 289, 295.
(3) The applicant must make proper inquiries before making the application: see Bank Mellat v. Nikpour  FSR 87. The duty of disclosure therefore applies not only to material facts known to the applicant but also to any additional facts which he would have known if he had made such inquiries.
(4) The extent of the inquiries which will be held to be proper, and therefore necessary, must depend on all the circumstances of the case including (a) the nature of the case which the applicant is making when he makes the application; and (b) the order for which application is made and the probable effect of the order on the defendant: see, for example, the examination by Scott J of the possible effect of an Anton Piller order in Columbia Picture Industries Inc. v. Robinson  Ch 38; and (c) the degree of legitimate urgency and the time available for the making of inquiries: see per Slade LJ in Bank Mellat v. Nikpour  FSR 87, 92-93.
(5) If material non-disclosure is established the court will be “astute to ensure that a plaintiff who obtains [an ex parte injunction] without full disclosure…is deprived of any advantage he may have derived by that breach of duty:” see per Donaldson LJ in Bank Mellat v. Nikpour , at p.91, citing Warrington LJ in the Kensington Income Tax Commissioners’ case  1 KB 486, 509.
(6) Whether the fact not disclosed is of sufficient materiality to justify or require immediate discharge of the order without examination of the merits depends on the importance of the fact to the issues which were to be decided by the judge on the application. The answer to the question whether the non-disclosure was innocent, in the sense that the fact was not known to the applicant or that its relevance was not perceived, is an important consideration but not decisive by reason of the duty on the applicant to make all proper inquiries and to give careful consideration to the case being presented.“
4. Middlesbrough FC’s without notice injunction application hearing of 9th January 2017
On the 9th of January 2017 the Club and their lawyers applied for an ex-parte (without notice) penal injunction to prevent Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI”) from its constitutional right to present a winding up petition against the Club if it continued to fail to pay the indisputable sum of a statutory demand served on them.
Law provides that a person or a business who cannot pay his or its debt can be adjudged insolvent by the court. The law intends that creditors of the insolvent estate are compensated when the liquidator realises the company’s assets and distributes the consideration to its creditors and contributories.
We demonstrate with evidence that the corrupt establishment has been “reverse engineering” the law, utilising insolvency to defraud creditors, or to take away a claimant’s standing to advance a claim with the aim of preventing justice being served on fellow corrupt Tory cronies.
4.1. How the club’s ex-parte application came about and why:
On 6th of January 2017 EEI served a statutory demand on Middlesbrough FC in the sum of £530,000 originating from a legal assignment of the investment it made in its subsidiary, the wind turbine development sole purpose company, Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW”).
On the 30th of June 2015 the Club received notice of absolute assignment of the investment made in EW for development of the wind turbine project, assigned to EEI of 29th of June 2015, which was served on the Club in hard copy the following day.
- Neither Middlesbrough FC, nor their lawyers could defend the claim of the demand, because, even if the Club did not refuse the connection for the wind turbine on the 30th of April 2015, they still unlawfully forfeited the lease.
- Law commits the assignment of the investment from EW to EEI as being effective from the 30th of June 2015.
Those two considerations together led to an indefensible statutory demand against the Club for a debt that cannot be disputed.
On the 5th of February 2018, when Nugee perverted the course of justice and fraudulently abused his position, it was said that the ex-parte injunction was granted on two grounds:
The two grounds on which the injunction was said to be granted, were proven from the outset.
Nugee, and later Fancourt, acted dishonestly in abuse of their positions, coming to assist the offenders in their quest to defraud company directors of the indefensible EEI statutory demand whilst concealing their serious offending.
5. Serious offences of fraud within insolvency proceedings is inextricably linked to the offending from 9th January 2017
The Insolvency Act 1986 / Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016 create several criminal offences when a person commits acts tending to defraud creditors. One such offence is that of Rule 1.56(1) of the Insolvency Rules 2016:
Offence in relation to inspection of documents
1.56.—(1) It is an offence for a person who does not have a right under these Rules to inspect a relevant document falsely to claim to be a creditor, a member of a company or a contributory of a company with the intention of gaining sight of the document.
(2) A relevant document is one which is on the court file, the bankruptcy file or held by the office-holder or any other person and which a creditor, a member of a company or a contributory of a company has the right to inspect under these Rules.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this rule is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.
In our previous articles exposing the criminal conspirators in judicial office: ICC Judge Jones and Chief ICC Judge Briggs, we evidenced how the corrupt administration hoodwinked the EW and EEI creditors of their right of equality before the law, each playing key roles in conspiracy to defraud.
We referred to the legal duty of the Court to apply insolvency set off. Rule 14.25(1) and 14.25(2) confers that legal duty.
Any lay person could establish, simply by reading this article, that the Club committed the offence above, they never had a claim to prove, which is why the criminal offenders purporting to be judges, deliberately failed in their duty to apply the mandatory statutory law set out in the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016, the law they purport to administer.
It was the Club’s £256,269.89 blackmail used to unlawfully forfeit the lease which was to be mandatorily set off against the EW multi-million-pound claim quantified with a high degree of certainty, for unlawful forfeiture of the lease.
Rule 14.25(3) affirms that only after the accounting set off can a creditor go on to prove in the insolvency.
Rule 14.25(4) determines that if, after mandatory accounting set off, a balance is owed to the Company, then that sum must be paid to the liquidator.
The Club never had a claim to prove, yet they claimed £256,269.89 on the 1st of December 2016, after the court failed in its duty to apply set off, rendering the EW winding up proceedings fundamentally defective and void. Everything founded upon the fundamentally defective insolvency proceedings is “void ab initio” (void from the outset), there is no real order of the Court.
On the 20th of December 2016, the Club and their lawyers submitted a further proof of debt claim against EW, in the sum of £541,308.89, almost double the sum of their blackmail, only originating from it. There was no disclosure whatsoever of the fact that the Club’s claim increased by £466,308.89 in just 19-days.
Exactly 24-days after Staunton admitted no claim could be established for energy supply, on the 2nd of February 2017 the Club submitted yet another proof of debt claim against EW, of which over £4 million was for energy supply.
In 2020, the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, affirmed that the duty to apply set off is a continuing duty on the liquidator, as well as the Court:
After the corrupt Official Receiver of London, Anthony Hannon sustained the fraudulent proof of debt he knew to be false, the EEI directors applied to Court to set aside the proof of debt. Clive Hugh Jones joined the conspiracy, fraudulently abusing his position, affronting the law to sustain the £4.1 million obviously fraudulent claim to defraud creditors whilst knowingly acting in excess of jurisdiction, perverting the course of justice.
6. The operative provision of force majeure at the heart of the case proving unlawful forfeiture by the Club
The wide force majeure definition and operative provision of force majeure in the lease absolved any liability on EW to pay rent, suspending the provision in the lease and the 365-day period in schedule 7 of the lease from which there was an obligation on EW to “commission” the wind turbine.
The delay of force majeure occurred just 96-days into the 365-day period free of rent, and was not resolved until 23rd December 2014. Thereafter EW was to enjoy 296-days free of rent to commission the turbine. The first installment of rent in the sum of £15,000 was therefore payable after the 17th of September 2015.
No rent was owed on the 30th of April 2015 when the Club refused the connection, and thereafter force majeure continued to suspend any obligation, because the Club defrauded EW of performing on the rights granted.
On the 19th of August 2015, the Club unlawfully forfeited the lease. The claim, founded by unlawful forfeiture is therefore indefensible.
We evidence below, how the offender, then Mr Justice Arnold, now Lord Justice Arnold, fabricated his 9th January 2017 judgment in 2020 when EEI applied for the transcript.
At paragraph 3 of his judgment below, we evidence that Arnold also lied to conceal the fact that no rent or energy supply was ever owed to the Club, falsely representing that the rent was £550,000.
Arnold was “not wanting to go into the planning aspect” in any detail, because he knew, as well as any lay person would have done, that the delay was force majeure, and that no money was ever owed to the Club:
Arnold knew that the claim of the demand could not be disputed. It was for that reason (his dishonest concealment) that Arnold did “not propose to go into in any great detail“. Arnold knew it was not “at least arguable” that the claim was disputed, because it cannot be. The terms of the completed contracts cannot be diminished, and force majeure is at the heart of it.
Knowing that Nugee found on the 5th of February 2018 that neither rent or energy supply was owed, and after Arnold’s fraud by false representation at paragraph 3 of his forged judgment, claiming that EW was indebted to the Club the Club for £550,000, in his later void February 2019 judgment at paragraph 105, Vos lied and also committed fraud by false representation, stating this:
“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 blackmail that the Club sought to prove against EW was for energy supply. Vos was concealing the £4.1 million fraud by false representation claim he was asked to try, which he failed to try, but only after first asking Staunton to retract and replace his 12th November 2018 skeleton where counsel for the Club admitted:
“R’s do not bring any claim against A, or Empowering or Earth Energy”
6.1. On 5th February 2018 Nugee found that Staunton, his personal associate twice lied, failing to disclose and then concealing a pertinent material fact
In tandem with prolific and obviously deliberate material non-disclosure on the 9th of January 2017, Ulick Staunton, counsel acting for the Club, lied and denied there was a force majeure operative clause in the lease, whilst admitting that “for the purpose of the Energy Supply Agreement, Force Majeure has effect “.
It becomes clear that there is some obvious pattern emerging where purported judges “don’t want to go into the detail” when they are paid by the taxpayer to do just that, whilst counsel for the Club is lying about precisely the same position.
It was evidenced to be Staunton’s actual state of mind on 9th of January 2017 that no money could be owed by EW for energy supply. Staunton therefore knew that £181,269.89 of the blackmail deployed by the Club, being an invoice for energy supply, was also a false claim.
At all times thereafter, the judicial fraudsters and the primary offenders they were working for knew the claims they were sustaining were false, and that therefore they knew what they were doing was dishonest.
That left a £75k fraudulent claim for rent, which Arnold lied about, stating that “Empowering Wind was liable to pay rent of £550,000 per annum” when he had the lease before him. Schedule 7 of the lease set out that the rent was just £50,000 per annum.
We adduce below paragraph 6 of the 5th February 2018 judgment by Mr Justice Nugee, as he was then known. Nugee found that Staunton, his personal associate had twice lied about the operative provision of force majeure in the lease, failing to disclose the most important material fact that proved EEI’s case:
There was no assessment or standard of review by Nugee whatsoever in the public interest in respect of what is the most prolific case of fraud by failing to disclose information during ex-parte injunction proceedings in the history of UK law, he was part of the fraud.
This premediated non-disclosure was not by a litigant in person, but by the Club, with its own in house lawyer (Bloom), their instructed lawyers; Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP and their instructed counsel, Ulick Staunton, all of whom owe a further public interest duty to the Court, committing the offences in conspiracy.
6.2. Failure to disclose material facts and information was case critical
The failure in duty of candour was case critical. It is self-revealing that the operative provision of force majeure and the factual circumstances in Middlesbrough FC refusing the connection for the wind turbine would have resulted in the court discovering that no rent was owed when the Club unlawfully forfeited the lease.
The fact that the corrupt judicial fraudsters are evidenced to have been working for them anyway, does nothing to assist their case, it just aggravates.
It is evident that it was recorded on Nugee’s judgment that it was “not disputed” by Staunton, the Club’s counsel that he and their instructing solicitors withheld over 172-pages of witness evidence from the ex-parte.
Nugee admitted that Staunton repeated the lie about force majeure before him, knowing that the delay of force majeure proved that the Club unlawfully forfeited the lease. Nugee concealed Staunton’s dishonesty to prevent the offenders from being prosecuted.
We obtained the transcript of the Club and their conspirator’s ex-parte hearing on the 9th of January 2017 showing how Staunton lied in court about force majeure:
6.3. Failure by the Club to disclose a further case critical fact: The Club had no contractual right to claim energy supply and any invoicing was contractually prohibited
There was no disclosure whatsoever by the Club, their instructed solicitors; Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP nor counsel; Ulick Staunton, that on 30th of April 2015, the Club prevented EW from establishing the connection by refusing their express obligation to facilitate the connection from their dedicated infrastructure to the turbine’s.
Without a connection, the turbine cannot function. The Club had prevented EW from performing on the rights granted which was to “construct, connect to the grid and operate” the wind turbine.
It was, we conclude, for that reason there no disclosure of the fact that the energy supply agreement between the Club and EW is conditional upon the director’s of EW “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” (which the Club refused) and “commissioning” of the wind turbine (which requires a grid connection).
In absence of satisfaction of those conditions by the EW directors, there was no “Entitlement to agreed output” (agreement to supply power) and any “Invoicing & payment” was also contractually prohibited. Had that fact been disclosed, it would have been discovered by the court that no energy supply was ever owed either.
That fact is inextricably linked to the fraudulent proof of debt claims aided and abetted by the judicial fraudsters.
The Club and their lawyers, who EW paid to complete the contracts, knew that the terms of the energy supply agreement was conditional. Likewise, we evidence that all along, from as early as 25th September 2012, the Club and their lawyers have always known of their obligation to take ownership of their dedicated substations to form a private network that the turbine would connect into.
It is self-evident that on the 30th of April 2015 and at all times thereafter, the Club and their lawyers knew that Bloom of the Club had refused the connection and therefore it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they knew the documentation they went on to withhold, in tandem with failing to disclose the case critical material facts, would have otherwise proven the EEI demand against them.
It was the Connection Offer (specifying that it was “condition precedent” of the connection for the wind turbine that the Club adopted its on-site substations), the Connection Deed between EW and Middlesbrough FC and the (unsigned) February 2015 agreement between Middlesbrough FC and Northern Powergrid, along with email chains which evidence the fact that the Club has known from the outset that it was express requirement of Northern Powergrid that they take ownership of their substations to enable a private network connection from their infrastructure to the turbine that were dishonestly withheld in breach of the Club and their conspirer’s legal duty to disclose.
Failure to disclose material information which proved that the Club had refused the connection which was jointly agreed in open email correspondence during the option agreement period, came in tandem with failure whatsoever to disclose any mention of the fact that the Club refused the connection. Without a connection, the turbine does not work.
It was the Middlesbrough Council 23rd September 2013 email chain, the planning decision notice itself, the “DTVA notification of decision” documents that proved that the delay between 23rd of September 2013 (when the Council accepted EW had done as required and were going to discharge the condition) which prevented the turbine from lawful operation) through to 23rd December 2014 (when the condition was finally removed), which was withheld, because it proved that the delay was force majeure and that no rent was ever owed.
Of the set of documents fraudulently withheld in relation to delay in approval required to operate the turbine, the 5th January 2015 “DTVA notification of decision” was particularly important. It showed, together with the Middlesbrough Council internal email chain, that the Council had maladministered their duty to discharge the condition when EW had done as required to have discharged it, by the Planning Authority’s own admission:
It is self-evident from the letter that the delay, which occurred just 96-days into the 365-day period free of rent from which to have commissioned the wind turbine, was a delay of force majeure, an act caused by a third party, namely the planning authority’s maladministration in failing to discharge the condition which prevented the turbine from operating, when it was accepted on the 23rd of September 2013 that EW did as required to have discharged it.
It does not take much investigation therefore to establish that failure to disclose information was prolific, and of premediated dishonest intent.
We further evidence below that Club and their conspirers withheld the assignment on which the demand was based, and continually failed to disclose it, whilst the Club’s general legal counsel, Bloom, made a knowingly false ex-parte witness statement, not only in respect of the assignment, but also in relation to the correct factual circumstances proving the delay of force majeure:
The two pieces of evidence we exhibited above, being the 23/09/2013 email chain and the Council’s “DTVA notification of decision” which were served with the demand on 6th January 2017 proved the correct factual position that in fact, there was never any “disagreement over the suitability of the mitigation scheme” which “led to the wind turbine project being delayed”.
Bloom critically failed to disclose the fact he refused the connection, he knew that the turbine was ready to construct from 5th February 2015 and was commercially attractive on the reduced tariff, but, without a connection, the turbine could not operate.
Paragraph 56 of the High Court ‘s UKIP v Braine judgment referred to the High Court decision by Warby J in Birmingham City Council v Afsar (No 1)  EWHC 1560:
“the authorities are clear: there is a “high duty to make full, fair and accurate disclosure … and to draw the court’s attention to significant … legal and procedural aspects of the case” … The duty is owed by the lawyers also. “It is the particular duty of the advocate to see that … at the hearing the court’s attention is drawn by him to … the applicable law and to the formalities and procedure to be observed”
It is our view that the primary offenders knew that they could rely on their political contacts, who would collude with the judiciary, police and regulatory authorities to ensure they could use the system to defraud whilst their criminality was consistently concealed.
A most serious aggravated criminal conspiracy ensued, but nobody can rely on English systemically corrupt law enforcement to act lawfully. In England, under this kleptocracy, law is “subject to status”.
7. The 15th November 2017 application
On the 15th of November 2017 the victim of crime, EEI, made an application for trial of Middlesbrough FC’s fraud and criminality. The application was expressly requested that it was to have been heard by a High Court Judge.
The application was to be the first hearing on notice in respect of the ex-parte injunction proceeding. The application sought trial of criminal conspiracy to defraud:
1 Fraud failing to disclose information during the ex-parte hearing:
2. 3 counts of fraud by false representation in respect of proof of debt claims made against EW by Middlesbrough FC and their lawyers:
3. Fraudulent abuse of position by the Official Receiver acting as liquidator who colluded with Middlesbrough FC:
4. Perjury in applications for High Court writs against EEI also originating from their criminal offending during the ex-parte hearing, leading to a £619.774.48 blackmail:
5. An application pursuant to Rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 for the court to remove and exclude the Club’s fraudulent c£4.1 million proof of debt claim which came about in any event solely as a result of the corrupt judiciary failing to apply mandatory law.
Acting under orders from the Attorney General’s Office, the offender, Chief ICC Judge Briggs, who is on the Attorney General’s A-Panel, installed ICC Judge Jones to preside over the application when law affirms that Jones had no jurisdiction.
In our previous article we evidenced how Jones perverted the course of justice whilst fraudulently abusing his position. We showed how Jones committed fraud by false representation, lying about the application of Part 14 of the Insolvency Rules and misrepresenting rule 14.11, falsely alleging that the rule only applies to proofs which had been admitted for dividend when there is no differentiation.
Fundamentally, Jones, and his fellow conspirers, all of judicial office, knew that they had wilfully evaded administering the entire scheme of law in Rule 14.25, rendering the insolvency proceedings defective and void from the outset.
There is high culpability, and all involved knew, or ought to have known the EW and the EEI claims were proven before the case came to court, that the claims were indefensible, and were therefore to have been paid as a dividend to creditors in accord with rule 14.25(5)
Law determined that the claims were to be paid in full to the Company, which is why, in both EW and EEI’s fraudulent insolvency proceedings, they failed to apply set off, rendering the proceedings “fundamentally defective” and void from the outset.
Acting under orders, Jones concealed criminal fraud by false representation and a multitude of offences committed in conspiracy by the Club, their lawyers, counsel and Anthony Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, including no less than 22 criminal offences under the Insolvency Act committed by Hannon in abuse of his position as liquidator for EW.
Hannon then went on to appoint himself as liquidator of EEI, to repeat his fraudulent abuse of position. Undoubdtely, Hannon knew he could rely on the politically compromised judiciary to prevent him from being prosecuted.
The courts are under a public interest duty to regulate the conduct of trustees and liquidators acting for insolvent estates. That duty is elevated when there is any prima facie evidence of misconduct or acting interests of creditors whilst occupying a fiduciary duty.
Early during the 21st of December 2017 hearing, as evidenced on the transcript Jones himself admitted he had no jurisdiction:
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.
8. Christopher Nugee deliberately evaded trying the issues when it was his duty in the public interest to have done so
During the eventual hearing on 5th February 2018 (which, courtesy of Jones, then turned out to be the first hearing on notice in relation to the ex-parte injunction). Knowing that Jones was acting in excess of jurisdiction to conceal the fraud, Nugee did precisely the same, evading the issues that needed to be tried.
At paragraph 2 of his judgment, Nugee admitted he failed to conduct any standard of review:
“It is necessary to give some account of the background, although given that I am sitting in the Applications Court and its already quarter to four, I don’t intend to do this in great detail”
Nugee did nothing, aside from deliberately failing in his duty, fraudulently abusing his position and perverting the course of public justice. He failed to conduct any review, knowing that doing so would reveal what we already have in this article.
What happened to the express public interest duties of the Court, the Arena judgment (above) for example? All non-existent.
Registrar Jones, the criminal offender, failed to recuse himself from the application that sought to try the criminal conspiracy to defraud when statute affirms he had no jurisdiction to hear the application.
Jones adjourned the rescission application (the application to remove him from the case) and then, on the 26th of March 2018, Jones failed to recuse himself and certified the rescission as “totally without merit“, meaning “no more or less than bound to fail” after he perverted the course of justice, acting outside his jurisdiction and whilst committing fraud by abuse of position and false representation.
Successive “layers”, corrupt members of the judiciary followed on, acting in excess of jurisdiction, only to fail to try what they knew had been concealed from the outset, certifying the indisputably proven case as “no more or less than bound to fail” and oppressively branding Mr Millinder, requisite majority creditor of both companies a “vexatious litigant” for challenging their judicial criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Nugee found that the proof of debt claims were false, but being part of the criminal conspiracy, he deliberately failed to recuse Jones, aiding and abetting the fraud that ensued:
9. Over 172 pages of witness evidence that proved the statutory demand was withheld
The 6th January 2017 statutory demand served on the Club by EEI was based on the original assignment of the investment made by the majority creditors of EW and EEI, with an absolute legal assignment effective of 29th June 2015 and served 30th of June 2015.
The EEI directors sought to recover 69% of their £770,000 investment in development of the project from February 2012 through until the Club unlawfully forfeited in August 2015. It was the intention to relinquish the unrecovered £240,000 and that the claim by the EEI sole director as creditor of EW would make it requisite majority. That was, until the Club submitted their fraudulent claim, exceeding £4 million.
The 6th of January 2017 statutory demand bundle served on the Club included the grid connection contracts for the wind turbine, evidencing that the Club refused the connection by performing on its contractual obligations, and information to prove that the delay the project encountered from the 23rd of September 2013 through until 23rd of December 2014 was a delay of force majeure (a delay caused by a third party which is beyond reasonable control of the contracting parties).
It was found by the EEI directors on the evening of 9th of January 2017, after the Club’s lawyers served the bundle of material they presented, that over 172 pages of witness evidence presented with the demand was withheld. The offences of fraud were immediately reported to police, who covered it up, wasting over 8-months in doing so.
The EEI directors could not bring civil proceedings whilst a police investigation was purportedly in process, for risk of compromising their investigation. They never even investigated.
The systemically corrupt police claimed that the statutory offence of fraud by failing to disclose was “a civil matter” and that “it was for the court to decide”. It is evidenced that neither the police nor courts ever did decide.
10. While dishonestly failing to disclose the assignment – the Club committed perjury making a knowingly false witness statement
On 6th January 2017, a process server served the statutory demand, together with the assignment and all the material information that was found to have been withheld. Process was served, and the bundle of documents was handed to the receptionist at Riverside Stadium’s front desk, then it was handed to their senior management
It was proven therefore that by the 8th of January 2017, when Bloom of the Club fabricated his witness statement for the ex-parte hearing, he had the assignment in his possession in hard copy with the demand, which referred to it, on the 6th of January 2017.
On the 3rd of January 2017, Bloom had the assignment notice and the demand in his possession by email which he responded to, knowing that notice of assignment was served on the 30th of June 2015, a day after the assignment resolution was completed.
At paragraph 22.2 of Bloom’s ex-parte witness statement, whilst failing to disclose that he refused the connection for the turbine on the 30th of April 2015 Bloom (pictured) made a knowingly false statement and certified it as true:
On the 6th of January 2017 both the Club and their lawyers had the assignment in their possession in hard copy, as well as by email. It was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Bloom and MFC knew the statement they certified as being true, was entirely false. This was done with knowledge and full consent of the Club’s management board.
They withheld the assignment, which formed the entire basis on which the demand was founded, in tandem with lying about it. Bloom, Gibson’s right hand man, general legal counsel for the Club, sought to veer away, knowing that the demand was based was the assignment. “No explanation is provided in the statutory demand“, he says:
The assignment resolution of 29th June 2015 was also served on Bloom by email on the 3rd of January 2017 with the demand.
At 21.18PM on the 3rd of January 2017 Bloom of the Club responded, evidently misrepresenting that EEI was implying that the claim for consequential loss vested in EW was assigned, when the assignment in his possession made the differentiation clear:
It was both the cover letter with notice of assignment, and the assignment resolution itself which were served on the Club on the 30th of June 2015 in hard copy, and then again with the demand by process server on the 6th of January 2017 which were fraudulently withheld.
That fraudulent non-disclosure came in tandem with the Club’s knowingly false witness statement where they denied all knowledge of the assignment. Their actions are proven to have been flagrantly dishonest on both counts (perjury and fraud by failing to disclose), and once again, the judicial fraudsters perverted the course of justice to ensure they were not prosecuted.
The evidence does not deceive.
On the 5th of February 2018 during what was supposed to be an application for trial of the criminal fraud by failing to disclose information, Lord Justice Nugee, then Mr Justice Nugee, found that the information withheld was central to the case in proving the demand, he himself therefore admitted that the non disclosure was material:
11. The continuing legal duty of full and frank disclosure
It is widely established in leading authorities over the last 40 plus years that the duty of full and frank disclosure obligations are continuous up until the first hearing on notice (where both parties attend the hearing) in relation to the ex-parte injunction proceeding.
In the case of Commercial Bank of the Near East PLC v A, B, C and D  2 Lloyd’s Rep 319, it was held that the ex parte injunction applicant is under a duty to return to Court and advise of any subsequent material changes in the situation. This duty was said to persist for as long as the proceedings remained ex parte, up until the first hearing on notice.
In Network Telecom (Europe) Ltd v Telephone Systems International Inc  EWHC 2890 (QB), the Court expanded on this duty and affirmed that the continuing legal duty set out in the Commercial Bank of the Near East case also applied to ex parte orders and not just freezing injunction application cases.
The Court held that new facts are to be considered material and therefore require disclosure if, had they existed at the time, the applicant would have been obliged to disclose them when seeking the order.
12. Serious fraudulent non disclosure and perversion of the course of justice
On the 11th of January 2017, just two days after the ex-parte hearing, the Respondent’s solicitors were instructed to make enquiries in relation to the non-disclosure. Womble Bond Dickinson, who were acting for the Club, were written to on the following terms:Exhibit-Penningtons-11.01.2017
We evidence that Womble Bond Dickinson responded to the letter, they referred in their response to the material non-disclosure and in breach of their continuing legal duty to disclose. Acting dishonestly, they failed to disclose both letters, when it is proven they knew of the significance of the circumstances:WBD-response-12-01-2017
Womble Bond Dickinson’s letter dated 12th January 2017 in response to Penningtons made reference to the assignment, one of the 11 items listed in the non-exhaustive list of material information as being withheld:
“The statutory demand refers to the alleged claim as having been assigned to EEIL from Empowering Wind MFC Limited (EWML) on 29 June 2015 despite Mr Millinder having stated as recently as 15 December 2016 that the claim could be assigned in the future to EEIL from EWML (now in liquidation)”
It was not only the actual assignment resolution itself, revealing the terms of the assignment resolution that was withheld, but also the notice of assignment cover letter, which was served on the Club on the 30th of June 2015.
In breach of the offender’s continuing legal duty to disclose, they withheld the complaint of material non disclosure because:
- It proved that the Club, counsel and their instructed solicitors had withheld all the information that proved the demand:
- It proved that EEI never consented to paying the Club’s costs for their criminality
13. Systemic corruption – A protracted conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice
Despite crimes being reported, Cleveland Police, Met Police, City of London Police and North Yorkshire Police all fell into line, acting under orders of the Tory Law Ministers in collusion to prevent criminal justice being served on the offenders. The corrupt judiciary, both civil and criminal were instructed to do the same, and Mr Justice Nugee, as he was then known, was only too keen to assist, affronting the criminal law which establishes the offence, and the overwhelming public interest in prosecuting.
On the 12th of September 2017 a complaint of contempt of court was made to Robert Buckland QC MP, then Solicitor General, also a personal associate of Robin Bloom, who was proven to have committed perjury and the offence on 2 counts, amongst other offences of fraud. Making a knowingly false witness statement is a contempt of court, and so is failing to disclose information.
In our third article in this sequel, we will expose the criminals in the Attorney General’s Office and how they maliciously sought to conceal criminal offences over several years.
We evidence in this article that both Mr Justice Nugee (now Lord Justice Nugee) and then Mr Justice Fancourt, deliberately concealed what is the most serious case of fraud by failing to disclose information, which came in tandem with the indictable only offence of perjury on both occasions, to prevent justice being served on the offenders.
13.1. Tory Law Ministers coerced magistrates court & civil judges to prevent justice being served on criminal offenders
After corrupt judges and police covered up, the victim of crime sought to bring a private criminal prosecution in York Magistrates to get justice for the crimes committed defrauding company creditors.
We evidence how Buckland QC MP colluded with Judge Michael Fanning of Kirklees Magistrates Court. Sitting as a district judge of the magistrates court, Fanning disposed of the prosecution to prevent justice being served on the offenders, under instruction of Buckland, the then Solicitor General.
The Attorney General and Solicitor General are responsible for the CPS, the Government Legal Department (“GLD”) and the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO“). Michael Ellis QC MP, the newly installed Attorney General, formerly Solicitor General, has been heavily involved in this criminal conspiracy, concealing criminal offences and proceeds of crime and seeking to deploy illegal restraint orders as the means of continuing the concealment.
Ellis, the traitor, now installed by the corrupt establishment as Attorney General can be seen on TV recently taking his oath of allegiance to the King, swearing to act “according to law“, but Ellis knew he has broken the law, perverting the course of justice and concealing criminal property by deployment of a false instrument, void restraint order.
Buckland and the Attorney General’s Office became involved when from early September 2017, the Respondent reported that Middlesbrough FC and their corrupt lawyers had committed fraud by failing to disclose information in tandem with Bloom making a proven, knowingly false witness statement.
Buckland sought to conceal, and we later established through our investigation that he is a personal associate of Bloom, they socialise together. Buckland falsely asserted that failing to disclose 172 pages of witness evidence in breach of their duty to disclose and making a knowingly false statement certified as true, was not a matter for his office.
Buckland and corrupt public officials of the Attorney General’s Office colluded with the judiciary from September 2017 onwards, in particular Richard David Arnold, the judge who presided over the ex-parte (without notice) injunction proceeding where the crimes were committed.
13.2. Political interference with criminal proceedings in magistrates courts to conceal proven offending by Middlesbrough FC and their conspirators
The private prosecutor established that there was third party interference with the private criminal prosecution he lodged at York Magistrates and over a week before Fanning purported to hear the applications for warrants of arrest on the 22nd of November 2018.
Buckland had directed that the case be “transferred out of circuit”, out of North Yorkshire, to South Yorkshire, when the applications were laid before York Magistrates.
We evidence the 3-minute recorded call with York Magistrates Court of 15th November 2018, one week prior to Fanning perverting the course of justice, when law affirms he had no jurisdiction to hear the application against Hannon, a corrupt public official anyway.
After finding that Kirklees Magistrates Court had deleted all the evidence from their Court file and that Fanning was knowingly acting in excess of jurisdiction and that he deliberately evaded and concealed all the private prosecutor’s submissions, the prosecutor lodged the application at Westminster Magistrates Court to deal with the multiple criminal offences that had been concealed.
We evidence how Westminster Magistrates Court, where the Chief Magistrate resides then deleted the 4 emails containing the private criminal prosecution evidence and applications.
We reveal a deliberate and pre-meditated pattern of dishonest concealment of evidence and facts, both in the civil and criminal proceedings in this case, all designed to prevent justice being served on the primary offenders and their co-conspirators.
14. 5th February 2018 – The first hearing on notice in Middlesbrough FC’s without notice injunction proceeding
After the systemically corrupt police lied, concealed evidence during the course of their mooted investigation and then affronted the criminal law by starting that their offending is ” a civil matter” on the 30th of January 2018 EEI made an application to set aside the fraudulently obtained injunction.
That’s where Lord Justice Nugee, or Mr Justice Nugee as he was then known, came to assist the offenders, concealing the proven perjury and two proven counts of fraud by failing to disclose information whilst fraudulently abusing his position to defraud the creditors of EEI of £530,000 plus standard 8% interest accruing since 30th June 2015.
We evidence how Nugee first admitted that the assignment was effective, but then at paragraph 10 of his judgment, Nugee committed fraud by false representation to make his corrupted version of the assignment, not absolute, relying on his fraud to assist the offenders after preventing justice from being served on them for what it the most prolific case of fraud by failing to disclose information, by lawyers who owe a duty to the court, in the history of UK law.
At paragraph 8 of his judgment:
“In this case, two separate grounds were advanced by Middlesbrough, both in the evidence and by Mr Staunton before Mr Justice Arnold. One related to the underlying nature of the claim by EEI, which was a question as to whether it was right that it was Middlesbrough’s fault that the project had collapsed and whether there was a cause of action for the sums which had been thrown away as a result, and it does seem to me that the bulk of the non disclosure went to that issue. The other was a question as to whether EEI had any cause of action vested in it at all“
15. Conclusions from the 5th February 2018 transcript of the hearing and the judgment
Nugee found that Middlesbrough FC were never creditors of EW and it was established that both he and Staunton accepted that the investment made in EW was assigned to EEI:
Nugee concealed Bloom’s perjury knowing that he lied about it in his x-parte witness statement when it was proven it was in his possession on the 30th June 2015, then on the 3rd of January 2017 by email which he responded to, and then on 6th of January 2017 in hard copy by process server.
Nugee found that “the bulk of the non disclosure went to the issue“,proving that the Club caused damage to both EW and EEI by refusing the connection. Nugee himself then committed fraud and made his corrupted version of the absolute assignment, not absolute so that his version did not comply with the law which makes the original notice of assignment “effectual from the date notice was given”
In other words, 100% of the material information that the ex-parte applicants were under a legal duty to have disclosed, was withheld, and then they breached their continuing legal duty to disclose the Penningtons letter of 11th January 2017, because it exposed their fraud and revealed that EEI never consented to costs.
On 16th January 2017, the Club fraudulently obtained a consent order, continuing the injunction only to defraud EEI of the assigned investment (exceeding £770,000 plus interest).
It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that in conspiracy between 9th of January 2017 and 5th February 2018, Middlesbrough FC, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP and Ulick Staunton, acting in conspiracy committed two counts of fraud by failing to disclose information contrary to section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, whilst Mr Bloom and the Club also committed 1 count of section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911, an indictable only offence, but also a civil contempt of court.
In order for a consent order to be valid, there must first be genuine consent. It is indefensible that had the Penningtons Manches LLP letter, and Womble Bond Dickinson’s response to it been disclosed, any judge would have found the prolific non-disclosure, and that there was no consent by EEI to pay costs. The 16th January 2017 purported consent order would never have originated.
On both counts, it is proven that the non-disclosure was convened with dishonest intent to defraud, and that the purported costs originating from the fraudulently obtained 16th January 2017 consent order is proceeds of crime.
In our previous article exposing the delinquent Treasury Solicitor we demonstrated how she and her corrupt Government Legal Department have been concealing two counts of proven criminal fraud by false representation on the part of Staunton, who sought to manifest the £25,000 proceeds of crime into a winding up petition against EEI.
It is self-evident that Staunton and his co-conspirators have known all along that the investment was assigned from EW to EEI, and that they could not defend the claim, so once again, the corrupt, politically controlled state terrorists masquerading as judges failed to apply mandatory set off of EEI’s claim against the Club’s £25,000 proceeds of crime, winding up EEI knowing that the £25,000 was not only proceeds of crime, but also that the debt never even existed, by Staunton’s own admission:
We presented the proven criminal fraud (and perjury) by Staunton where he falsely represented the cross claim he knew was the assigned investments denying there was ever an assignment from EW (subsidiary) to EEI when just a few weeks prior, on the 5th February 2018, he and Nugee accepted this:
We evidenced proven criminal fraud (and perjury) by Staunton where he falsely represented the cross claim he knew was the assigned investments denying there was ever an assignment from EW (subsidiary) to EEI when just a few weeks prior, on the 5th February 2018 he and Nugee accepted that:
Mr Staunton: Second page in. Reading that second paragraph, what’s assigned to EEI are the investments, the £200,000
Nugee J: Yeah
It was proven beyond doubt that 4-days prior to going on to wind up EEI using their £25,000 proceeds of crime founded by their criminal offending between 9th January 2017 – 5th February 2018, the Club and their lawyers all knew that the assigned investment was the claim vested in EEI and that the Club were not owed a single penny.
On 28th March 2018, acting fraudulently, the corrupt Court worked for the offenders to defraud the EEI creditors of the assigned investment, winding up for the £25,000 proceeds of crime knowing that no debt was owed. Once again, the judicial fraudsters failed to apply mandatory set off, for even if the Club’s proceeds of crime were a genuine claim, they still had the legal duty to set off against EEI’s claim, and working in conspiracy to defraud, they all wanted to prevent that from happening.
16. Coming up – Mr Justice Fancourt manifested the criminal conspiracy
Our next article we expose the criminal, Mr Justice Fancourt and how he repeated the criminal abuse, fraudulently abusing his position, acting in excess of jurisdiction only to defraud creditors whilst perverting the course of justice.
Fancourt suppressed the Respondent’s application for a 21 hour trial of the fraud, going on to assist the offenders concealing 2 further counts of fraud by failing to disclose information and one count of perjury by the Club and their white-collar criminal cabal to defraud the requisite majority creditor of EW and EEW of the same indisputable claim.
Unsurprisingly, given their proven corrupt practice in maliciously and unjustly certifying the proven case as “no more or less than bound to fail”, Fancourt certified the application to set aside the orders of 9th and 16th January 2017 as so, concealing criminal fraud, but whilst admitting he failed to access any single part of the Applicant’s evidence whatsoever to conceal the 3rd and 4th counts.
It is time for the people to take action to remove these tyrants from public and judicial office. Back in the day, these traitors would have been hung from the tower. Today, the corrupt establishment shield them from prosecution.
Help us to help you, like, comment and share this article far and wide.