Lord Justice Nugee, who was then Mr Justice Nugee is an utterly dishonest, oath breaking white-collar criminal who tampers with evidence, misrepresents the law and dishonestly abuses his position, acting maliciously, “with favour and ill-will” to make a gain and to cause loss, whilst perverting the course of justice, to prevent justice being served on fellow colluding white-collar criminal lawyers who rely on the likes of Nugee and other quisling members of this racketeering enterprise, to defraud and feed off the fruits of their frauds in the name of justice.

Citation from page 69 – 71 of the transcript of the hearing before Nugee J of 5th February 2018

A copy of the transcript & judgment of the hearing is here.

Mr Staunton: And then, page 171, there is a statutory demand —

Nugee J: And it comes from EEI?

Mr Staunton: Yeah. Now, of important to note page 174, there’s an assertion there’d been an assignment —

Nugee J: Yes, on the 26th June.

Mr Staunton: On the 26th of June ’15, indeed.

Nugee J: Yes.

Mr Staunton: Now —

A. Nugee J confirms he has read and was taken to the assignment minute

  1. Nugee J: Well, that was the document which Mr Millinder showed me, which is the board minutes.

2. Mr Staunton: Yeah, right.

3. Nugee J: And that was one of the documents referred to in, in Penningtons letter of the 11th?

4. Mr Staunton: Indeed, and its tab, Mr Millinder’s bundle, tab 27 I have it at.

5. Nugee J: Yes, yes.

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

7. Nugee J: Yeah.

B. Staunton first fraudulently misrepresents the second paragraph of the terms of the assignment:

  1. Mr Staunton: But not the cause of action, because in this second paragraph, third line:

a. “We agree to separate out what went in as an investment to the project, so there were two causes of action with the payment recovering funds invested and Empowering recovering consequential loss.”

2. So, it’s still its claim.

3. Nugee J: Well, I’m not sure I’ve quite understood how that fits with the claim that was in the statutory demand. Because the statutory demand is for £200,000 on the lease premium and £330,000 in legal and technical project development processes, and that could be the parent’s investment, could it not?

4. Mr Staunton: It might be, yes. But all of this point about assignment was dealt with in Mr Bloom’s witness statement for Mr Justice Arnold.

5. Nugee J: Yeah.

6. Mr Staunton: And so therefore, it’s also in my skeleton before Mr Justice Arnold in paragraph 12.

7. Nugee J: Yeah.

8. Mr Staunton: So, what Mr Justice Arnold had before him was a threat by EEI to serve a statutory demand with questions about whether the debt is disputed, whether it’s a dispute between the parties which had been canvassed in correspondence, and secondly, whether in fact EEI had any claim.

9. Nugee J: Yeah.

C. Staunton lied and misrepresented the fact that the assignment had been served on the offenders on 30/06/2015, then on 03/01/2017 and then on 6/01/2017

1. Mr Staunton: And the evidence before him, in my submission, was that until service of the statutory demand Mr Millinder had been advancing claims on behalf of Empowering Wind, not EEI.

2. Nugee J: Yes.

3. Mr Staunton: It was its claim. And for that reason, Mr Justice Arnold grants the injunction.

4. Defendant’s bundle, tab two, page 9’s the attendance note.

5. Nugee J: Yeah.

6. Mr Staunton: If you turn onto page 10, Mr Justice Arnold’s decision at the foot of the page.

7. If you turn over, page 11, fifth paragraph commencing on that page 8. “Until recently.”

8Nugee J: Yeah.

9. Mr Staunton: And the following paragraph as well.
“The Respondent states.”

It was said that the injunction was granted on two grounds

10. So, Mr Justice Arnold grants the injunction on two grounds —

11. Nugee J: Two grounds.

12. Mr Staunton: Essentially, yeah.

13. Nugee J: Because there’s —

14. Mr Staunton: Dispute and doubts —

15. Nugee J: There’s doubt, doubt over the assignment and dispute over the claim.

16. Mr Staunton: Absolutely.

17. Nugee J: Yes.

The law makes the assignment valid from the date notice was given (29th June 2015) and the claim for unlawful forfeiture is proven and cannot be disputed.

D. Lord Justice Nugee then follows suit with Staunton and fraudulently misrepresented the terms of the assignment

Nugee, by his own admission at paragraph A.1 above, was taken to the terms of the assignment and at paragraph A.4 above, he is taken to it again by Staunton.

At paragraph A.1(a), Staunton reads out part of the assignment resolution that was withheld from the ex-parte hearing, but misrepresents the word “Parent” and with “payment”.

At paragraph A.6, Staunton himself admits to Nugee “what’s assigned to EEI are the investments, the £200,000” .

At paragraph B.3 above Nugee refers to the £530,000 (sum of the demand, less interest) stating that “it could be the parent’s investment could it not?“. Nugee knew it was “Parent’s investment” because Staunton told him that the assignment had taken place. That however, did not matter to Nugee, Pelling, Arnold or Vos, they were all intent on using insolvency to defraud, acting under instruction of Buckland and Burnett to do so.

E. Nugee committed fraud by false representation (S2 of the Fraud Act 2006)

Nugee relied on his corrupted version of the assignment in his order of 5th February 2018 to defraud Mr Millinder of the indisputable sum of the statutory demand after finding that no money was ever owed to the Club and that they unlawfully forfeited the Lease based on their demand of 25th June 2015 that they transformed into the first of 4 frauds by false representation. The frauds were conveyed to originate the insolvency of Empowering Wind MFC Ltd, then to keep the proven asset beyond reach of creditors.

Aside from conspiring to pervert the course of justice, Nugee is guilty of fraud, the offence conferred in section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

At paragraph 10 of his order, Nugee falsely represented his own version of the assignment:

We agreed to tidy up loose ends on some of the feeds and the 200K that we paid from other accounts of Earth Energy Investments as parent of Empowering MFCas assigning those investments representing what we put into project”

Nugee falsely represented the terms of the assignment to make it not absolute

Nugee had the original assignment before him, he knew of the correct terms, which are:

We agreed to tidy up loose ends on some of the fees and the £200,000 so that Earth Energy Investments, as Parent of Empowering MFC is assigned those investments, representing what we put into project”

The correct original version, an absolute assignment of the investment to Parent Company

F. Nugee was acting dishonestly and he knew the representation he was making was false

Nugee had the assignment before him in the hard copy bundle, tab_27, he was taken to it twice, both by Mr Millinder and then by Mr Staunton who additionally admitted that “what’s assigned are the investments” . Nugee had the hard copy bundle before him when he was formulating his order and he made the conscious and premeditated decision to falsely represent the assignment to make its terms not absolute.

Any judge would know that any absolute assignment of which express written notice has been given is effectual in law. It is proven that Nugee knew that, which is why he falsely represented the assignment to make it not absolute.

Nugee knew what he was doing was dishonest and his representation was made to make a gain and to cause a loss to Mr Millinder.

Below, we cite the passage from his order of 5th February 2018:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Nugee_order_1.jpg

Nugee had found that the assignment had been withheld, but he deliberately evaded altogether the fact that Bloom lied and made a false statement when it is proven he had the assignment in his possession on 3rd January 2017 together with multiple notices of the assignment but in particular, this one, of 3rd January 2017 that was served on him by email complete with the demand and the assignment of 29th June 2015.

Nugee carried on the fraud committed by Bloom in his witness statement, deliberately misrepresenting the fact that there are two causes of action and one of which is not assigned:

We agree to separate out what went in as an investment to the project, so there are two causes of action with the parent recovering funds invested and Empowering recovering consequential loss”Nugee knew that the investment has been assigned, which is precisely what the assignment told him (as above) but he misrepresented the position, just as Bloom did, by stating “the decision to discuss matters with various solicitors and get another legal opinion” . Nugee knew the first cause of action “the parent recovering funds invested” is what the demand was doing by virtue of the assignment.

Nugee deliberately failed to deal with the fact that Bloom had notice of the assignment of 30th June 2015, then on 3rd January 2017 (the demand – Part B, the express notice of assignment by email and the assignment itself, but again on 6th January 2017 in hard copy). Nugee was more interested in defrauding Mr Millinder and preventing justice being served on Bloom for his perjury and fraudulent non-disclosure.

This instance of fraud and perversion of the course of justice by Nugee is far from isolated

In his mala fide void order of 18th June 2019 made under the guise of the ECRO false instrument that was deployed by the judicial criminals to conceal the fraud, Nugee found that Hannon had withheld the proofs of debt he is under a duty to disclose.

When Nugee found that the proofs of debt (he had already found to be false on 5th February 2018) were in Hannon’s possession, Nugee lied and misrepresented rule 14.6 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 knowing that it places a legal duty on Hannon to disclose and knowing that Hannon has committed the offence of fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006). There is some protracted pattern to Nugee’s malicious abuse and perversion of the course of justice.

Nugee refused Mr Millinder the right of standard discovery in civil proceedings conferred in CPR Part 31, because he knew that disclosure of the proofs of debt Hannon was withholding would prove dishonesty. Nugee has been assisting the offenders since 5th February 2018, knowing of the offences they have committed.

From page 12 of his order of 18th June 2019, paragraph 19 and 20 Nugee said this:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Nugee_order_18_06_2019_1.jpg

Nugee knew Hannon had dishonestly withheld the two proofs of debt, the first, he had in his possession on 1st December 2016 in the sum of £256,269.89 and the second on 20th December 2016 in the sum of £541,308.89. Nugee knew that the test for dishonesty (fraud) is the same in both civil and criminal proceedings, but yet he affronted the law that provides the legal duty on Hannon to disclose.

Nugee also knew that Hannon had committed the indictable only offence of section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 by stating in his “Official Receiver’s Report to Court of 15th December 2017” that “only one proof of debt exists”. At paragraph 21 of his order, he said this:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Nugee_order_18_06_2019_2-1.jpg

Nugee was defrauding Mr Millinder of his right in law to inspect the proofs of debt Hannon was withholding when the law states that:

14.6.  The office-holder must, so long as proofs delivered to the office-holder are in the possession of the office-holder, allow them to be inspected, at all reasonable times on any business day

When he found, at paragraph 21 (above) that Hannon has withheld the first and second proof of debt, Nugee then lied and misrepresented the law that places the legal duty on him to disclose knowing that he has acted dishonestly and knowing that Nugee himself found that the claims are false (all of them are fraudulent).

Nugee entirely misrepresented the application of Part 14 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, knowing that the proofs of debt had been lodged to prevent the legitimate body of creditors from calling a meeting to replace Hannon, the offender, who had sustained the fraudulent £4.1 million claim that Nugee too was sustaining, by failing to recuse Jones knowing that Jones was part of the fraud. Nugee conjured up this nonsense:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Nugee_order_18_06_2019_3.jpg

Nugee knew, as well as Mr Millinder did, that Hannon has a duty to adjudicate on the proofs of debt when a meeting of creditors is called on to replace him. Nugee knew that was not happening, because Hannon was sustaining the £4.1 million claim that Nugee himself found to be false, but he just kept it there to defraud creditors. Nugee continued his lies, misrepresenting the law:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Nugee_order_18_06_2019_4-1200x652.jpg

Above, Nugee led and misrepresented the fact that a proof of debt is the document on which a creditor submits its claim and that rule 14.6 applies to any proof of debt that has been admitted from the date the office holder admits the proof of debt, in any insolvency proceedings. Clearly Nugee did know that the 1st proof of debt in the sum of £256,269.89 meets the criteria of proof set out in rule 14.4 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, but yet he was very silent about rule 14.10:

14.10.—(1) A creditor may withdraw a proof at any time by delivering a written notice to the office-holder. (2) The amount claimed by a creditor’s proof may be varied at any time by agreement between the creditor and the office-holder.

Or 14.11, which provides the duty on the Court to amend down or exclude a proof of debt (from the date the office holder admits the proof) if the office holder refuses to interfere in the matter. We quote the next fraudulent misrepresentation:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Nugee_order_18_06_2019_5-1200x652.jpg

Nugee lied and stated that rule 14.6 does not apply, knowing that it applies to any proof of debt that has been accepted by the office holder from the date it is accepted.

The body of creditors have a right to inspect and challenge any proof of debt from the date the proof is admitted by the office holder, otherwise criminals, like Nugee, Jones, Pelling, Arnold, Vos, MFC, Hannon and their conspirers, would always do what the Club has done in submitting a fraudulent claim to defeat the rights of the legitimate body of creditors to call a meeting.

It is proven that Nugee has acted with dishonest intent to defraud, committing fraud by false representation respective of the assignment that he knew was effectual in law, to defraud Mr Millinder of over £640,000, as he has done in retaining the fraudulent £4.1 million claim to keep the proven asset, the claim proven by virtue of unlawful forfeiture of the Lease, beyond the reach of creditors. Nugee himself, however, found on 5th February 2018 that the claims are false and that the Club unlawfully forfeited the Lease, therefore he knew that the claim for unlawful forfeitrue is a substantial asset.

Nugee has fraudulently abused his position, acting with dishonest intent to defraud, but yet he remains in office, promoted by the corrupt establishment to a Lord Justice of Appeal. The conduct of Nugee would be considered dishonest in the opinion of any honest and reasonable person in view of the circumstances.

We have invited Nugee to comment on these findings accordingly.

See: Robin Bloom’s witness statement of 8th January 2017 is false, being the perjury Nugee was concealing.