Judicial corruption: In this investigatory article we provide the classic example as to how the UK’s politically controlled corrupt judiciary have betrayed the rule of law and British constitutional principles. Moreover, they have betrayed the people and the trust placed in them by the people to administer justice and the law. Fraud, human rights abuse and injustice prevails. Lord Justice Nugee
English law is the most comprehensive in the world. The issue is that the laws are only as good as the administration, and it is proven that the UK’s administration does not work. The Tory kleptocracy have violated the long established British constitutional principles, and the modern day rule of law.
The supremacy of the rule of law is our birthright, a gift that we are born with. Every living man and woman is entitled to equality before the law, but when corrupt central government officials intervene, equality is denied, the law is defaced and remedy for wrongdoing is vehemently denied.
This case is all about how corrupt Tories interfered with judicial process throughout protracted civil and criminal proceedings to provide impunity to Steve Gibson OBE, the owner of Middlesbrough FC despite him and his lawyers conspiring to defraud. They were made “above the law”.
The reader can either watch the video, or get right to it by reading the article below, or by cutting to the chase, using the table of contents to navigate directly to the evidence.
Watch our 21-minute video exposing UK judicial corruption by political interference
The laws of the land are very much taken as read, they are not designed to be complex, for the right to self determination under the rule of law is the very fabric of the liberty of our society.
Everyone must know what’s right and wrong. It is for that reason we have jury trials, to ensure justice is administered fairly. Any ordinary and reasonable man or woman can determine the meaning of the law.
A legal assignment of a debt and how judicial corruption by political interference took it apart
Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is simple statutory law that governs legal assignment of debts, claims or other things in action:
The law in question determines that any absolute assignment of which notice has been given to the debtor or party to which the assignment affects, is effectual in law, from the date of the notice. The position is incontrovertible, for that is the law.
Judges are in office to administer the law, but in this case, it is proven they have diminished the rule of law and they did so, to defraud.
The 29th June 2015 original assignment terms – Legal assignment of the debt from EW to EEI
The absolute assignment of the investment made by Mr Millinder in EW was assigned to EEI and notice of the assignment was served the following day, on 30th June 2015. Below are the exact terms of the assignment, signed under hand by Mr Millinder for the assignor and for the assignee:
It is evidenced below from the transcript of the 5th February 2018 hearing that Lord Justice Nugee established that the £530,000 sum of the statutory demand was part of Mr Millinder’s investment assigned to EEI, parent company:
“All of this point about the assignment was dealt with in Mr Bloom’s witness statement for Mr Justice Arnold”, says Staunton, knowing that Bloom committed perjury and denied all knowledge of the assignment.
Categoric proof that Lord Justice Nugee committed fraud
Lord Justice Nugee himself then committed fraud by false representation making his corrupted version of the original assignment not absolute, so that his version did not confirm with the law. Nugee then relied on his fraud to assist the offenders in defrauding the developer of over £530,000.
The evidence does not deceive. Lord Justice Nugee tampered with the evidence to alter the outcome (perverting the course of justice and committing fraud by abuse of position) to make his falsely represented version that he cited in his judgment not absolute.
The work of an honourable judge? Without fear, favour, affection or ill-will? …according to law, so help me God?
How the claim for the assigned investments came about
Just 4-days after receiving the Club’s blackmail for c£256k on 25th June 2015 , Mr Millinder assigned the £770,000 investment he made in EW (his wind turbine sole purpose company) to EEI (parent company investment vehicle), so that parent company recovered the investment from Middlesbrough FC, whilst EW recovered the consequential loss.
The claim arose against Middlesbrough FC after they refused the connection for the wind turbine on 30th April 2015. It was the connection for the turbine which formed the entire basis and understanding upon which the contracts were completed, namely, the lease, connection deed and energy supply agreement.
Middlesbrough FC were to take ownership of their high voltage dedicated substations to form a private network the turbine would connect into. After agreeing the connection configuration during the option period, from September 2012 – 4th January 2013, six-months prior to EW completing the Lease on the basis of that connection (without the connection, the turbine cannot operate), on 30th April 2015, the Club refused the connection.
The claim arose because the Club prevented the developer from performing on the rights granted, and then unlawfully forfeited the Lease. The claim became payable from 30th June 2015, when Mr Millinder served the Club with that assignment.
Even if the Club did not refuse the connection, they still unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their c£256,000 unwarranted demand, of which £181,269.89 was for energy supply, they prevented from being supplied.
The 6th January 2017 statutory demand for £530,000 against the Club
On 3rd January 2017, Mr Millinder served a statutory demand against the Club for £530,000 of the £770,000 assigned investments, firstly by email, to Mr Bloom, then on 6th January 2017, in hard copy at the stadium by licensed process server.
Rather than recovering all of the assigned investment by statutory demand, £240,000 was Mr Millinder’s interest as requisite majority creditor of EW, which had been wound up as a result of the Club’s fraudulent claim.
Mr Millinder was to relinquish £240k of the assigned investment, retaining his position as requisite majority creditor of EW, the subsidiary. The Club, and their conspirators, including corrupt judges, ensured that didn’t happen either.
They have been “reverse engineering” insolvency law designed to recover assets for creditors, as the means of defrauding creditors of their assets.
This article shows how they did it, in simple evidential terms.
On 9th January 2017, knowing that they could not defend the demand, because it is proven that the Club did unlawfully forfeit the lease after refusing the connection, they attended an ex-parte (without notice) hearing to injunct EEI to prevent Mr Millinder from recovering the indisputable debt.
The Club fraudulently withheld the assignment, along with 171 pages of material information that proved the demand.
Mr Bloom, their general legal counsel lied about the assignment that originated the demand in his witness statement, denying all knowledge of it, stating he saw no evidence of the assignment. It is proven that by then, Mr Bloom had the assignment in his possession 3-times over, first on 30th June 2015 in hard copy, then on 3rd January 2017 by email (which he responded to), then on 6th January 2017.
Mr Bloom committed perjury, an indictable only offence. It mattered not, the corrupt, politically controlled UK judges provide impunity to fraudster lawyers so they can use the courts to defraud. Remedy for wrongdoing is always denied.
Below is Mr Bloom and paragraph 22.2 of his 8th January 2017 witness statement:
Lord Justice Nugee perverted the course of justice
It was EEI’s 30th January 2018 application to set aside the fraudulently obtained 9th January 2017 and 16th January 2017 injunction orders that came before Lord Justice Nugee on 5th February 2018.
During all ex-parte injunction and financial remedy proceedings, the applicant is under a strict legal duty to disclose all facts and information relevant to the case being advanced in the opposing party’s absence, even if disclosure is detrimental to the applicant’s case.
Deliberately or dishonestly failing to disclose, when a there is a legal duty to do so is a serious criminal offence. The offence is that of fraud by failing to disclose information, section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.
The Club had withheld the assignment on which the demand was based whilst Mr Bloom lied about it in his 8th January 2017 witness statement. Any lay person could therefore determine that Mr Bloom, a lawyer, had the conscious and pre-meditated intent to withhold that assignment when he wrote his witness statement on the day prior to the ex-parte hearing.
It is therefore proven that Mr Bloom knew the statement he was making was false and that his non disclosure was of dishonest intent to defraud Mr Millinder of the assigned investments.
Lord Justice Nugee found on 5th February 2018 that the Club withheld 172 pages of witness evidence, including the connection agreement, in tandem with making no disclosure whatsoever of the fact they refused the connection. That in itself would have been cause for any judge, who was not corrupt, to discharge the injunction:
Lord Justice Nugee also found that the bulk of the fraudulent non disclosure went to the issue proving that the Club refused the connection, originating the cause of action:
At the same time, Nugee found that Staunton had lied about the operative provision of Force Majeure in the lease, once in breach of his legal duty to disclose during the 9th January 2017 ex-parte hearing, and then again before him on 5th February 2018, but again, he did nothing aside from conceal the blatant dishonesty.
It was after all the operative provision of Force Majeure in the lease that suspended the 365-day period provided for in schedule 7, free of rent from which to commission the turbine. The delay of force majeure caused by Middlesbrough Council occurred just 96-days into that period and that delay was not resolved until 23rd December 2014, meaning that the first payment of £15,000 would have fallen due to the Club on 17th September 2015 (had they not refused the connection). The Club unlawfully forfeited (after refusing the connection) on 19th August 2015.
Once again, the failure to disclose “went to the heart” of the case. Nugee found that no money was ever owed to the Club and that they unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their £256,269.89 blackmail, yet by then Nugee also knew that the Club and their corrupt lawyers had made further claims, with the last exceeding £4.1 million. Nugee did nothing aside from aiding and abetting their fraud.
On 5th February 2018 it was established that the assigned investment is a cross claim that extinguished the Club’s £25k fraudulent liability
Prior to Nugee first accepting that the £530,000 statutory demand was part of the assigned investment, Staunton, who lives just a few minutes walk away from Nugee in Islington (they socialise together), Staunton first misrepresented the word “Parent” with “payment”. Nugee came in with his later, in his judgment.
It is evidenced on 5th February 2018 that Staunton admitted that the investments were assigned, and that likewise, the Court knew, from 9th January 2017 that there is a cross claim that extinguished any liability on EEI to pay the Club a single penny. The Club owed EEI £770,000 plus standard interest.
Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 – The mandatory law on set off
Both EW and EEI had claims far exceeding the Club’s fraudulent liabilities. EW had a claim founded by unlawful forfeiture of the lease exceeding £10 million, being the consequential loss of revenue that would have otherwise been gained by Mr Millinder had the Club not refused the connection and unlawfully forfeited.
EEI had a claim against the Club in the sum of £770,000, the assigned investments, plus standard 8% interest accruing from the date of the assignment.
Rule 14.25(2) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 provides a mandatory duty on the Court to apply set off where there has been mutual dealings between the company and a creditor, or an entity claiming to prove, as the Club were.
One must naturally question why, both in respect of EW and EEI, the Court failed in that mandatory duty. Was it because they were assisting the Club in using the Court to defraud Mr Millinder? There can be no other logical explanation and given that Nugee himself committed fraud in respect of the assignment, the answer is self-revealing, as it is in relation to EW and their fraudulent £4.1 million claim.
Defrauded of his assets and deprived of his right of equality before the law
Rule 14.25(4) and rule 14.25(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 determines that the claims, both the claim vesting in EW and EEI were to be paid to the liquidator and distributed to creditors as a dividend:
The assigned investments were always payable, they were on 9th January 2017 when the Court assisted the offenders with their fraud by granting an injunction to defraud Mr Millinder, via EEI of his £530,000, the sum of the indisputable demand.
Winding up of EEI on 28th March 2018 for the fraudulent £25,000 against the £770,000 cross claim assigned investments
7-days after the hearing before Nugee, on 12th February 2018, the Club’s instructing solicitor presented a fraudulent winding up petition in the sum of £25,000 against EEI.
On 1st March 2018, after Nugee had failed to provide directions that Mr Millinder applied for on 7th February 2018, EEI made a further application to set aside the order of 16th January 2017 originating their £25,000.
On 21st March 2018 Nugee dismissed the Club’s application to set aside EEI’s application of 1st March 2018 and listed the application to set aside the order of 16th January 2017 in the usual way:
The purported £25,000 fraudulent liability, that was in any event extinguished by the cross claim assigned investments by over 30 times as of 5th February 2018 was subject to challenge by order of a High Court Judge, and was therefore, indisputably, disputed on genuine and substantial grounds.
The petition was a clear and obvious abuse of process, but the Club and their conspirators had other ideas, in using the façade of insolvency to defraud by “reverse engineering” the legislation and by making a complete mockery of the rule of law, the purported judges assisted them whenever they required.
On 28th March 2018 Mr Staunton committed fraud in Mr Millinder’s absence, falsely misrepresenting the cross claim and the order of 21st March 2018
Staunton did of course know that the cross claim is the assigned investments that he has been lying about since 9th January 2017, but which he admitted was assigned on 5th February 2018 as evidenced in that transcript.
Staunton had the conscious and pre-meditated intent to lie, knowing that the assigned investments extinguished their fraudulently obtained £25,000 by over 30 times.
On 28th March 2018 Staunton also lied about the order of 21st March 2018 listing the application to set aside their £25,000 for a hearing
Mr Staunton knew that an alleged debt that is subject to challenge by order of a High Court Judge cannot be a petition debt, so he also lied about the order of 21st March 2018 he had in his possession 1-week prior that listed EEI’s application to set aside their £25,000 aside.
On 29th March 2018 Mr Millinder made an application to rescind the fraudulently obtained 28th March 2018 winding up order against EEI, the applicant.
That application came before the corruptor, Chief Registrar Nicholas Briggs, a close personal associate of both Staunton and Hannon on 11th April 2018.
On 11th April 2018 Staunton was forced to admit that the cross claim assigned investments extinguished their £25,000
Staunton admitted what they all knew all along, but he knew he had no worries, Chief Registrar Briggs was working for them anyway, he denied remedy for the most fundamentally obvious wrongdoing, refusing to rescind the winding up order against EEI knowing that it had been founded by Staunton’s fraud, knowing that the cross claim extinguished the liability and knowing that the petition debt was an abuse of process.
On all three grounds, it was proven that the £25,000 petition debt was a nullity, but moreover, it was founded by the Club and their conspirator’s criminal offending on 9th January 2017, and at all times thereafter. The £25,000 was proceeds of crime, originating from their fraud by failing to disclose.
Staunton was relying on Lord Justice Nugee’s fraud by false representation, taking Briggs to his judgment and stating “that’s an exact quote” knowing that both he and Nugee falsely represented the terms of the assignment on 5th February 2018.
After Mr Millinder corrected him on the position, Staunton was then forced to admit:
Once again, Staunton’s dishonesty is prolific, he is a perpetual liar who appears to get some perverse pleasure out of defrauding people and lying to the court.
Knowing that he lied about the cross claim on 28th March 2018, making no mention whatsoever of the assignment he admitted was effective before Nugee on 5th February 2018, Staunton lied again and stated that the cross claim was before Judge Barber.
Once again, the Court failed to apply the mandatory law in set off to pave way for the Club and their corrupt lawyers to use the Court and legal apparatus to defraud creditors.
Who selects the Judge? The Club, their lawyers and the corrupt Tory establishment do
They selected the judge and factored in this vile, corrupt oath breaking individual, the freemason white-collar criminal, Philip Mark Pelling QC (below), who again got promoted by the Tory establishment after following his orders.
A typical trait of systemic corruption, compliance is rewarded, but only at the expense of you, the taxpayer.
On 28th June 2018 Pelling certified Mr Millinder’s proven case as “totally without merit”, meaning no more or less than bound to fail, to originate a false instrument, void, without jurisdiction civil restraint order to conceal their fraudulent conspiracy.
Pelling affronted the law that makes any absolute assignment effectual from the date notice is given, depriving Mr Millinder of his right to equality before the law and concealing the fact that Staunton himself had admitted that the cross claim assigned investments extinguished their fraudulent £25,000.
It is not res judicata to make more than one application to set aside a judgment and essentially EEI’s application to 1st March 2018 was doing precisely that. Mr Millinder asked the Court to exercise it’s duty of inquiry, knowing that the purported consent order of 16th January 2017 is a sham, founded by a protracted fraud, yet it was that fraud they were all sustaining to defraud Mr Millinder of the £770,000 assigned investments.
It is worth reading our piece on the insolvency court’s duty of inquiry to fully understand how Mr Millinder has consistently been denied justice by the judicial fraudsters.
The corrupt, politically controlled judiciary thereafter used the void restraint order as a form of concealment, depriving Mr Millinder of his right of access to justice.
Every application made to attempt to set aside the fraudulent £25k and the fraudulent £4.1 million proof of debt, was consistently denied. Essentially the Club, their corrupt lawyers and the politically controlled judicial white-collar criminals were all using the frauds by false representation, in conspiracy to defraud Mr Millinder of his assets, whilst conspiring to pervert the course of justice, preventing justice being served on the Club and their co-conspirators.
Sustaining the Club’s £4.1 million fraudulent claim to keep the asset beyond reach of creditors
Mr Hannon, the corrupt Official Receiver of London however, had accepted the £4.1 million fraudulent claim against EW on 2nd February 2017, just 24-days after the Club’s own counsel admitted no claims could be established for energy supply because “Force Majeure has effect”.
On 15th November 2017 Mr Millinder made an application pursuant to rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 for the Court to remove the fraudulent proof of debt that was being sustained by the Club and their conspirers, including Mr Hannon, and to exclude the Club from making further claims from the same originating source as their first (the blackmail). The application was intercepted by Registrar Clive Hugh Jones, the corrupt Insolvency Registrar who affronted the law and sustained the knowingly fraudulent claim to assist the Club.
On 28th September 2018, Mr Millinder made an application to try the fraud that had been concealed and to set aside the void, false instrument “Extended Vicil Restraint Order” deployed by Pelling to conceal the blatant protracted fraud.
As a result of Jone’s fraudulent abuse of position and perversion of the course of justice, by 15th August 2018, Hannon was still purporting to act as liquidator of EW:
3 months later, Staunton had “U-turned” on the claims he admitted could not be established on 9th January 2017, when he stated “for the purpose of the Energy Supply Agreement, Force Majeure has effect”.
On 14th November 2018 Staunton “U-turns” on the claims
Bizarrely, Staunton sought to reincarnate the £25,000 fraudulent claim he admitted was extinguished by the cross claim 7-months prior. How does a claim that was extinguished, suddenly re-materialize?
Staunton was paving way for the next layer in the conspiracy, Sir Geoffrey Vos to conceal the fraud, affronting the law that makes the assignment valid, and sustaining the false instrument restraint order to continue concealing the criminal property Mr Millinder has been defrauded of.
On 9th February 2019 Vos failed to try the fraud that the application sought to have tried
There are 3 simple and proven limbs to Mr Millinder’s case:
- The claim founded by unlawful forfeiture of the wind turbine lease is a substantial asset to be realised for EW creditors
- The investment assigned to EEI extinguish any claim the Club could bring against EEI
- No money has ever been owed to the Club for either rent, or energy supply
By 9th February 2019, all of those points were proven, there was no dispute, for the Club’s counsel had already accepted those 3 limbs are correct and issue estoppel applies to point 1 and 3 respective of the 5th February 2018 judgment by Lord Justice Nugee.
The application that came before Sir Geoffrey Vos, who is now head of civil justice for England and Wales applied for a trial of the three issues and to assign the right of action from EW to Mr Millinder directly.
The application specifically asked the Court to exercise its duty of inquiry and to set aside the fraudulent £25,000 and the proof of debt claim against EW in the sum of £4,111,874.75. In a nutshell, the duty of inquiry is well established in a number of judgments, summarised perfectly in Fraser:
Fraser was a judgment debtor, who had exhaustively challenged the imposition of a judgment debt upon him, but without success. Fraser’s application to set aside the judgment debt had failed before a Master (twice), Judge (once), Divisional Court (once) and Court of Appeal (once), yet this presented no bar in the Bankruptcy Court.
in Ex parte Bryant (1815). Lord Eldon said: “Proof upon a judgment will not stand merely upon that, if there is not a debt due in ‘truth and reality,’ for which the consideration must be looked to.” Can this judgment be treated as conclusive in bankruptcy because the debtor has unsuccessfully attempted to set it aside? I think not, and I cannot see how the matter is any more res judicata because there has been an unsuccessful appeal to this Court. I agree in all that the Master of the Rolls has said on this point”
Whenever there is a prima facie case made out to set aside the judgment, the affected party can ask the insolvency court to exercise it’s duty of inquiry. That is precisely what Millinder was asking Vos to do, presenting the Court with the categoric admission that the Club’s barrister had “U-turned” on the claims, whilst conceding that the £25,000 was extinguished by the cross claim assigned investments.
Sir Geoffrey Vos stepped in, only to conceal the fraud, to affront the rule of law and to assist the offenders
At paragraph 50 of his judgment, Vos stated this: “
Mr Millinder makes a number of allegations about Mr Staunton’s misconduct and non-disclosure at this hearing. I need not set out those allegations at length, though they are elaborated in paragraphs 70-74 of his first skeleton”
Vos was referring to the fact that the order of 28th March 2018 was founded by Staunton’s conscious and pre-meditated dishonesty (fraud), so he sought to evade that altogether, yet the application before him asked him specifically to try that fraud. Vos was perverting the course of justice. It is a fraud to conceal fraud.
At paragraph 53 of his judgment, Vos seeks once again to conceal Staunton’s fraud and the admission that the cross claim extinguished the £25,000:
“Mr Millinder makes a number of allegations about this hearing and Mr Staunton’s conduct in relation to it. I need not set out those allegations in detail, though they are made at length in paragraphs 75-82 of his first skeleton”.
It is clear and obvious Vos is concealing the fraud, yet it was the very same fraud that the application sought to try.
At paragraph 54, Vos refers to the fact that Hannon had appointed himself as liquidator of EEI to defraud Millinder of the assigned investments:
Mr Hannon, by now the liquidator of both Earth Energy and Empowering Wind MFC, did not wish to pursue Earth Energy’s alleged claim against Middlesbrough and contended that no such claim was assigned by Empowering Wind MFC to Earth Energy under the alleged assignment or at all.
Vos seeks to lend credence to blatant and proven fraud. The liquidator of EEI (Earth Energy) was Mr Dionne. It is a criminal offence to fail to publish notice of a liquidator’s appointment in the Gazette. It is attested in the Gazette, that Hannon was never lawfully appointed as liquidator, he was only there, as Vos was, to continue the Club’s fraud and to prevent justice being served on them.
Sir Geoffrey Vos affronted the long established doctrine in the insolvency court’s duty of inquiry to sustain the fraud
Paragraphs 85 through to 100 are a direct affront to the insolvency court’s duty of inquiry and at paragraph 100 Vos rounded his verbiage off by stating this:
“As I have already made clear, the circumstances in which a court can set aside or even investigate, the correctness of orders, save in the context of properly constituted appeals, are very strictly limited. Our courts rightly set great store by the finality of the orders that are made after argument. The option for taking two bites at the cherry are limited indeed”
Vos, then sitting as Chancellor of the High Court in the insolvency court, decimated the long established authorities.
It was Chief Registrar Briggs himself who recited some of those authorities, in his judgment in Barclays Bank v Atay (2015), just 3-years prior:
“The ability of the Bankruptcy Court to go behind a judgment where necessary was well established by a series of 19th Century cases and although this species of scrutiny is not carried out as a matter of course, it is always possible for it to be done if it is expressly requested, whether by the debtor himself or by the trustee in bankruptcy”
At paragraph 103 of his judgment, Vos stated this:
“I can say at once that I have been through all the papers in this case in meticulous detail, and I have seen no evidence of any kind for any of the allegations of fraud, conspiracy or misdealing that Mr Millinder has made”.
What about the fraud that is distinctly pleaded and proven in this article? The same evidence was before Vos. Any honest, ordinary informed lay person could determine the fraud, they call themselves judges?
At paragraph 105 Vos stated this:
“On 25th June 2015, Middlesbrough invoiced Empowering Wind MFC for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89″.
He knew that no rent was owed and £181,269.89 of the demand was invoices for energy supply when any “invoicing & payment was contractually prohibited and that there was no “entitlement to agreed output”. Notwithstanding the fact that he had the judgment by Nugee in his possession where he found that neither rent or energy supply was owed. A “quantified claim for rent” he says.
Vos affronts section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 which commits the assignment as being effectual in law
At paragraph 106 Vos stated this:
“Successive judges have held that there is no satisfactory evidence of the alleged assignment, and that what evidence there is, does not support the existence of an assignment, even of an alleged claim by Empowering Wind MFC for the return of the Lease premium of £200,000. HHJ Pelling in his 7th June 2018 judgment refused to accept that that was what was referred to in the Minutes”.
The law is what they are affronting, not Mr Millinder or the evidence, for the assignment is absolute, that cannot be disputed, the assignment was served, that cannot be disputed and the law commits any absolute assignment, of which notice has been given, as being effectual in law.
At paragraph 107, Vos stated this:
“I should say at once that Mr Millinder cannot ask me now to decide whether Nugee J and HHJ Pelling were mistaken about the validity of the alleged assignment. That could only have been done on appeal from those decisions, which are now out of time“
Another affront to the insolvency court’s duty of inquiry which provides that the court could do so, notwithstanding the fact that both Nugee and Pelling committed fraud and affronted the law they are supposed to administer.
At paragraph 109, Vos once again seeks to degrade the assignment:
“It is simply not obvious precisely what was being assigned or what notice of the assignment was given to Middlesbrough”.
It is clear to any reader that Vos is looking for any illogical excuse to assist the offenders in degrading the assignment. To recap, the terms of the assignment were expressly clear:
“Earth Energy Investments is assigned those investments”
An incontrovertible, absolute assignment of all the investment made in EW to EEI. What is not obvious about it?
This is the man now heading up the civil justice system, no wonder it’s such a mess. The problem is, they are the fraud, it’s not the laws, but the administration that is up the creek.
On 18th March 2018, Mr Millinder assigned the investments back to himself
Knowing that the assigned £770,000 investments had at all times extinguished the Club’s £25,000 fraudulent liability and that an alleged debt subject to challenge by order of a High Court Judge is not a debt, notwithstanding the fact that he never consented to paying the costs and therefore the consent order is invalid and was in any event founded by fraud, Mr Millinder assigned the investment back to himself.
On 6th October 2020, Mr Millinder served a statutory demand on the Club for the indisputable debt which was assigned. Once again, history repeated itself.
On 23rd October 2020 the Club attended a further ex-parte hearing to defraud Mr Millinder of the assigned investment
Statutory law commits the assignment as being effective and the claim for unlawful forfeiture was proven, but in addition, the winding up order was founded by Staunton’s fraud. In account of all circumstances, it was impossible for the Club and their lawyers to have defended the statutory demand, so, history repeated itself.
On 23rd October 2020 they attended a further ex-parte hearing, this time with Dov Ohrenstein, a fellow corrupt lawyer originating from the same chambers as Staunton, namely, Radcliffe Chambers. It was found that they fraudulently withheld 13 material exhibits of information, including the 5th February 2018 judgment by Nugee where he found that the claim is proven, and the original assignment.
Mr Justice Fancourt perverted the course of justice making another restraint order to assist the offenders in their fraud
On 27th October 2020, Mr Millinder made an application for trial of the fraud by failing to disclose information which again came in tandem with a false ex-parte witness statement by the Club’s lawyers. This time, Mr Justice Fancourt came to the offender’s aid, making an injunction to assist them in using the court to defraud, and then covering up their fraud and concealing the criminal property Mr Millinder has been defrauded of, with yet another false instrument “General Civil Restraint Order”.
During the hearing of 6th November 2020, Fancourt suppressed Mr Millinder’s application for trial, admitting that he failed to access one single piece of Mr Millinder’s evidence, it was all pre-determined.
On 6th November 2020 Mr Justice Fancourt admits that the assignment was never tried and that the “substantive issues” had never been tried
Nothing ever needed to be tried, for law makes the assignment effective from 30th June 2015 and the claim for unlawful forfeiture of the lease is also irrefutable. The terms of a completed contract cannot be diminished, neither can the law. These fake actor fraudsters purporting to be judges who assist fellow criminal racketeers in using the courts are the problem.
They certified the proven case as “no more or less than bound to fail”, affronting and making a mockery of every law in the process.
Conclusively, it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that all the purported judges in this case are fraudsters, liars, cheats and fake actors. Nobody can rely on the corrupt, politically controlled courts to do justice.
Please help us to help you, like, comment and share widely.