Intelligence UK Investigations has taken the government to Court, and they made it a public case, listing who the defendants are, on Case Board shortly after the claim was issued.

‘Justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done’

In the featured image: Heads of the judiciary in the firing line – Left: Sue Lascelles Carr, the Lady Chief Justice. Next left: grayscale: Geoffrey Charles Vos, the current Master of the Rolls, second on the right: Julian Martin Flaux, the Chancellor of the High Court of Equity (Chancery) and far right: the new Lord Chancellor who inherited position as the Defendant, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for justice; David Lindon Lammy). Judicial fraud and corruption?

We brought the case in the court of equity, relying on long-established case-law of the insolvency court and its duty of inquiry, the doctrine of no res judicata when it be shown that there is ‘no debt owed to the purported creditor in truth and reality‘

The duty of inquiry: In Dawodu v American Express Bank BPIR 983, Etherton J, as he was then known, conducted a helpful evaulation of the long-established common law doctrine looking at judgments going back to the early 1800s. A court of insolvency can “go behind” a judgment to investigate the validity of the underlying debt if there is evidence of “fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice”, that is the line of authority. A judgment, even if it’s a final court order, is not automatically conclusive in bankruptcy proceedings if the one challenging it can show one of those issues, or that, ‘there is no debt due, in truth and reality’.

The case is about contractual facts, and involves important points of law and public interest principle, including the long established law of insolvency set off (Rule 14.25 Insolvency Rules 2016) and the anti-deprivation principle. We rely on 3 Supreme Court final judgments on the issue, substantiating the argument on which the claim is founded.

We’re alleging that the Defendants wilfully failed in their statutory duties to have administered the mandatory law of due process in two separate sets of corporate insolvency proceedings.

Our investigation on the run up to this claim raises questions about serious corruption within the insolvency sector and the public authorities, and third party interference with courts and the judiciary in this high profile public case, which is also against Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd, its Chairman being the Tory politician, Steve Gibson OBE.

Above the law? or just bypassing it?

We are alleging that the heads of judiciary, and the Lord Chancellor have failed in their statutory duties to have maintained judicial independence contrary to Section 3(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

The case is self-funded, in the public interest, and in the interests of justice, by this Firm.

We will be reporting via our website as the case unfolds. Copies of the transcripts and judgments will be made available, with case updates published here as a rolling record.

UPDATE: 9 September 2025: The GLD formally request an extension of time to respond to the claim served on them

By email on 9 September 2025 the Government Legal Department, instructed to act for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd 5th and 6th Defendants requested an extension of time to respond to the claim served on them by us on 4 September 2025.

On 9 September, after the GLD assuring the Claimant, with the promise, ‘please be assured that you will not be prejudiced by this extension‘ the Claimant accepted the GLD’s request for an extension of time to respond.

UPDATE: 11 September 2025 – The Court assists the Defendants buying time – Cheating by ICCJ Prentis / AKA Sebastian Prentis

After serving the 4th Defendant (Middlesbrough Football Club) 10 September 2025, on 11 September 2025 we received the order exhibited below from Sebastian Prentis (now known as ICCJ – ‘Insolvency & Companies Court Judge’), who is married to the former Tory Attorney General, Victoria Prentis, who are known to be good friends with the alleged fraudster, ICCJ Jones (Clive Hugh Jones), who was the first to fraudulently fail to judge in the case, from December 2017 in the first proceeding brought by Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI“) as an ‘aggrieved creditor’ of Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW“).

intelligence-o-9

ICCJ Prentis practiced with Jones for years at New Square Chambers, and they are part of a small team of insolvency registrars, now known as ‘ICCJs’ (insolvency & companies court judges), who work together at the Rolls Building, Court of Chancery, on Fetter Lane in the City of London.

It was Jones (then known as Registrar Jones) who is alleged to have first committed judicial fraud in the case acquired by this firm, the case involving Mr Millinder, a creditor of both EW and EEI.

It is alleged that Jones ‘fraudulently failed to judge’ and failed to administer the law along with other judges in this case, from 21 December 2017.

Judicial fraud and a network of colluding liar lawyers and judges of common purpose – They lie, lie and lie even more

It is a fact that Sebastian Prentis’s wife’s, whether directly or indirectly, covered up the alleged fraud and corruption in this case when she (Victoria Mary Prentis), also ‘champagne associates’ of Jones, was Attorney General from 25 October 2022 – 5 July 2024.

Between 20 February 2023 and 4 April 2023 we filed an application for trial and two claims in the Administrative Court. We were wanting to get the Court to rule on the points of law at issue, but proceedings were suppressed and concealed.

Those proceedings were against the Attorney General, (then Mrs Prentis), with the same defendants in this case.

It is all very close knit, even going as far as marriage between the ‘Minister for the Rule of Law’ (Attorney General), and the judge!

The former Tory Attorney General (Prentis) is married to a Judge. The former Labour Shadow Attorney General, Emily Thornberry, is married to Lord Justice Nugee, another judge alleged by Mr Millinder to have concealed and falsely represented facts.

What about the ‘constitutional separation gap between the courts and judiciary, and central government?

This lot marry each other, how very constitutionally separate they are.

False allegations made by a ‘third party’ to Companies House to have the Claimant stuck off

ICCJ Prentis stayed the claim after third parties (likely the Defendants or someone acting on their behalf), falsely alleged to Companies House that the Company’s registered office, is not the registered office when it has never changed.

Consequential of the unlawful third party interference and false allegation, Companies House asserted that the Claimant’s address registered at Companies House, was not the Company’s authorised office address and as such, the Companies House Default Address was replaced.

Therefore, the Company would not, and did not receive any notice of the proposed strike off action, or any correspondence tot he Company’s lawful registered office it, via a third party, sought to circumvent.

ICCJ Prentis lied in this order of 11 September 2025

It is evident from the order, ICCJ Prentis said this:

“AND UPON the Claim Form failing to provide the Claimant’s CPR 6.23 physical address for
service in the UK”

The claim form

We show you a screenshot of the claim form below. The Claimant’s physical address for service in the UK that ICCJ Prentis lied about is plain for all to see.

ICCJ Prentis acted off his own whim, concocting a story, in line with the third-party fraudulent intervention at Companies House, merely as a frivolous excuse to stay the claim to assist the Defendants in our view.

Intelligence UK Investigations concludes therefore that it was pre-mediated and ICCJ Prentis may well have had prior knowledge of the interference with Companies House.

The intent by that third party interference based on a false representation which is easily proven, was to have the Claimant stuck off the Companies House register. A struck off company cannot continue a claim.

We wonder where the third party interference came from?

Evidence from the Company that the Claimant leases the office from:

The official letter: ‘The London Office’ to Companies House dated 26 August 2025:

“We are applying on behalf of our client to reinstate their address with Companies House to our address and remove the default address. They have our permission to use our address in areas described in the purchase order below”

Email from ‘The London Office’ of 26 August 2025 at 09.29AM GMT:

“we are not sure why Companies House has reverted to the default address and initiated the striking-off process”

Third parties, likely acting for the Defendants, made the false representation that the Claimant’s office is not the Claimant’s office, resulting in Companies House, bizarrely, then commencing strike off action, advertising the strike off in the London Gazette, causing unjust company reputational damage.

The Claimant only found out about the strike off action by chance on 26 August 2025, as one of our third party suppliers had done a search and refused to provide services as the company was being ‘struck off’.

Had the Claimant not inadvertently discovered this fraud against the Company, had we not checked in time, the Company would have been dissolved, the Defendants would have evaded justice, defeating the Claimant without defending any part of the claim.

We can easily conclude that the order by ICCJ Prentis was nothing other than an attempt to cheat, and to delay justice, a non-judicial and unjust intervention by a politically conflicted ‘judge’ who is connected to the primary offenders of the Defendants in this case.

Members of the public wishing to attend the hearings or to be updated on this case should get in touch so we can register your interest.

Comments, shares and likes are much appreciated. We’ll keep you updated on progress as the case continues to unfold.

English Constitution Movement launch – Restoring English Constitutional Principles

With this, comes the launch of a powerful new non-political English Constitution Movement, enforcing long-established English constitutional principles that have been eroded to pave the way for unscrupulous officials, corporations and their affiliates being able to bypass the law and justice.

‘No one is above the law‘, and we’re here to ensure it stays that way.