Kevin Modiri (pictured), a solicitor at Nelsons Solicitors has been at it, we allege, he has been perverting the truth, to conceal the lies, and the underlying systemic corruption of England’s judiciary and legal sector.
We invite Kevin Modiri and Nelsons Solicitors to come out of the woodwork and try to substantiate in any way that our allegation that the top of England’s judiciary are anything other than absolutely corrupt. If our article alleging judicial corruption is defamatory, it must first be false. Do you think it’s false after reading this? Get in touch and let us know.
Kevin Modiri – Nelsons Solicitors: “Intelligence UK Publishes Article Alleging Key Figures In The UK Civil Justice System Are Corrupt – Are The Comments Defamatory?“
No, Kevin and Nelsons Solicitors, Intelligence UK International only publishes the truth, based on real evidence, and here, we have evidence “out of the horse’s mouth” from the former Chancellor of the High Court, and now Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos himself.
“You’re shaking your head, you’ll be fucking shaking it again soon, I’ll be fucking shaking it” “I want your walls and I want your eyes out of your head; I want the fucking roof off your house; I want your kids out of private school; I want no shoes on your fucking feet, that’s what is going to happen” “Do you understand that? You fucking answer the question. You’ve got 21 fucking days and Armageddon is coming.” – Steve Gibson OBE – Chairman of Middlesbrough FC & Tory politician
The full story on Gibson and MFC’s threats, coercion and unwarranted demands? See: Steve Gibson & Teesside corruption strikes at the heart of justice.
Gibson and Middlesbrough FC (“MFC“) really do have some form in making unwarranted and ransom demands, going all the way back to 25 June 2015 when MFC blackmailed the developer of the Middlesbrough FC wind powered football stadium project who had paid them £200,000 for a lease to construct, connect to the grid and operate, a 1.5 megawatt, 136 metre-high turbine in their overflow carpark.
After refusing the connection which formed the basis on which the developer completed the lease, MFC demanded £75,000 for rent and an invoice of £181,269.89 for energy supply, when there was no “Entitlement to agreed output” (agreement to supply power) and any “Invoicing & Payment” was subject to the developer’s “satisfaction in full of” “entering into a connection agreement” which MFC refused, and “commissioning” of the wind turbine.
Blatant dishonesty during the ex-parte hearing and lies by then Mr Justice Arnold – Now Lord Justice Arnold
We were shown the official transcript of an ex-parte (without notice) financial injunction proceeding brought by MFC and their lawyers and before Arnold J on 9 January 2017. Thomas Ulick Staunton (“Staunton”) was counsel instructed by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP in Newcastle to represent MFC.
MR STAUNTON: If I take you to p.32, cl.1.1, covenant to pay that further rent as set out in Schedule 7. Page 48, cl.1.4.1, there is the further rent of 50,000 a year—-
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: — and if you turn over the page, my Lord, 1.7 and 1.8, that is to be paid on the usual quarter days. So there is the obligation. It is the obligation of Empowering Wind, and you know from the evidence it fails to pay that additional rent, hence the lease is forfeit, which gives rise to this claim. The respondent argues constantly about force majeure. Can you turn back to p.22, please? There is a definition clause for force majeure. The very curious thing is, although it is part of the definition clause of the lease, there is no further mention in the lease of force majeure, what happens should circumstances of force majeure arise. It is very curious.
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Right. Yes, that is odd.
MR STAUNTON: So it does not appear on the face of this document that any event of force majeure excuses Empowering Wind from paying the rent. Where you do find force majeure is, if you turn on to the energy supply agreement, p.51, it has an effective force majeure clause. So p.51. This is the energy supply agreement.
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: If you turn on to p.54, you will see the force majeure definition about twothirds of the way down the page. It is slightly different to the definition of force majeure in the lease, but that’s neither here nor there in my submission, but this does have effect because if you turn on to p.57—-
MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: –– cl.3.1.2, there is an obligation to pay sums, and p.60, cl.6, does have an effective force majeure clause. Now, I do not have, in the evidence, any answers to why there is an effective force majeure in the energy supply agreement but not in the lease, but that is the evidence before you.
The evidence that was before Arnold J which Staunton took him to
EXHIBIT 1: Schedule 7 of the lease:
This evidence, which Staunton took Arnold J to shows that the lease had 12 months free of rent for the turbine to be commissioned, and that the rent was £50,000 per annum. It is evident from the transcript snippet that Staunton told Arnold J that the rent was £50,000 a year and Arnold J agreed.
EXHIBIT-2: Page 29 of the Lease – Agreements & Declarations
It is evident from the ex-parte hearing transcript snippet we cited above that Staunton lied in breach of his legal duty to disclose and he lied about the most fundamentally important part of the ex-parte respondent’s case.
Staunton was correct when he said “the respondent constantly argues about force majeure“, because force majeure proved that MFC fraudulently forfeited the lease based on their blackmail. In other words, Staunton was acting with intent to defraud by concealing the material fact that the delay of force majeure happened just 96-days into the 365-day period free of rent in Schedule 7.
The effect of that being, that when the delay of force majeure was resolved, the first quarter’s rent under Schedule 7, which is £12,500 plus V.A.T, became due and payable on or around 18 September 2015.
Clause 6 of Agreements & Declarations of the lease is what Staunton lied about and said was not present, but yet Arnold J confirmed he had read the evidence.
If Arnold did read the evidence like he said he did, he would have known Staunton was lying would he not?
On 25 June 2015 MFC blackmailed the developer with a demand for £75,000 of rent.
On 19 August 2015, prior to the first installment of rent falling due, MFC fraudulently forfeited the lease based on their blackmail.
Arnold commits fraud and perverts by lying at para. 3 of his 9 January 2017 judgment
Paragraph 3 of Arnold J’s 9 January 2017 judgment:
“The background to the matter, in summary, is as follows. On 17 June 2013 the applicant granted Empowering Wind a lease on payment of a premium of £200,000 under which Empowering Wind was liable to pay rent of £550,000 per annum. There was a planning aspect to the matter which I do not propose to go into in any detail, but the upshot was that it was not until December 2014 that Empowering Wind obtained planning permission from the local planning authority. Empowering Wind paid the rents due under the lease up to June 2015, but thereafter failed to pay the rent. On 19 August 2015 the applicant forfeited the lease”.
It is evident that knowing that the rent was £50,000 and having been taken by Staunton to Schedule 7 and told expressly that it was, Arnold J lied and stated that the developer was liable to pay £550,000 per annum because Staunton told him that force majeure had effect in relation to the energy supply agreement, and that no payment for energy supply was therefore owed.
Arnold made up the figure of £550,000 in rent to conceal the fact that on 20 December 2016, MFC fraudulently claimed the sum of £541,308.89 of which £466,308.89 was also under the conditional energy supply agreement, when there was no agreement to supply power.
Arnold lied and stated that the developer paid rent up until June 2015, but the blackmail was dated 25 June 2015. Staunton took him to that the invoice for energy supply in the sum of £181,269.89. There was no mistaking it.
On 5 February 2018, Nugee J found that Staunton twice lied about force majeure in the lease and awarded him £10,000 in costs for his fraud whilst preventing justice being served on MFC and their corrupt lawyers for what was undoubtedly the most prolific case of fraudulent non-disclosure by lawyers in the history of UK law, with over 172-pages of witness evidence and material information being withheld.
On 5 February 2018, naturally, in light of the obvious, Nugee J found that no rent or energy supply was owed to MFC prior to them “demanding money” which was in June 2015.
On 8 February 2019 Sir Geoffrey Vos perverted and concealed fraud – Now second highest judge in the UK!
We cite knowingly false statements at paragraphs 103 and 105 of the judgment by Sir Geoffrey Vos in Millinder v Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd :
“103. 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. He has made these allegations when he became frustrated by his seeming inability to find a forum in which he would vindicate what he saw as his companies’ irrebuttable claims. He should not have done so, nor should he have threatened any of these professionals or public servants as he has sought to do“
105. On 25th June 2015, Middlesbrough invoiced Empowering Wind MFC for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89 and threatened forfeiture of the Lease and termination of the ESA. Mr Millinder could at that stage, on behalf of Empowering Wind MFC, if he had grounds to do so, immediately have challenged those claims. He could have sought an injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition, or initiated a civil claim to determine whether or not the monies claimed were due on the basis of the force majeure clauses or otherwise. At the same time, Mr Millinder could have advanced Empowering Wind MFC’s alleged cross claims for misrepresentation and breaches of the Lease and the ESA. He did not, however, do so.
So, let’s just get this right, so we have the choreography. On 25 June 2015 MFC blackmailed the developer in the sum of £256,269.89 of which £75k was rent, £181,269.89, energy supply.
On 9 January 2017 Arnold J is lying and stating that the rent owed in June 2015 was £550,000 (all of which was for rent).
On 5 February 2018 Nugee J found that no rent or energy supply was owed.
On 8 February 2019 Vos, the then Chancellor of the High Court is lying stating that the blackmail of 25 June 2015 is a quantified claim for rent, knowing that £75k was rent and £181,269.89 was energy supply, that his Court found to be false, with no money owed, on 5 February 2018.
Vos C knew, or ought to have known that the fraud, conspiracy and misdealing was in fraudulent breach of duty by the insolvency registrars and by the liquidator, the Official Receiver of London, by failing to have administered the mandatory law of due process in rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016.
Vos C made reference to the fact he knew of the cross claims, he concealed the fraud by negating whatsoever to have accounted for the law of statutory insolvency set off, the most critical part of Millinder’s case.
All of the above liars and cheats fell into line to conceal the fraud and corruption.
We evidence fraud conspiracy and misdealing by the judges themselves
Law and the evidence does not deceive, only the deceivers do, and behind the deceit always lays the truth, that’s where we are going.
Investigation is all about getting to the correct facts, exposing the truth. Prisons are full of those who thought they could evade the law, by perverting the truth, by thinking they would never get caught.
In our investigatory report we are using to lobby public officials and international leaders to take action, we exposed the fraud, conspiracy and misdealing, the law behind it and the concealment.
It was the corruptors themselves that put their garbage judgments into the public domain, seeking to pervert the truth with their propaganda and lies, and here we have a prime example of deviations of the truth intended to lend credence to a judiciary harboring those proven unworthy. Is that acting first and foremost in the interests of justice, Kevin?
We take our readers to the real evidence in our investigation: Sir Geoffrey Vos driving the plague of judicial corruption. For those with a spare 15 minutes to read it to get to the background, well worth while.
We like to tell it as it is, in a way the ordinary bloke in the pub can immediately grasp, so we go straight for the raw evidence in the public domain proving that the Official Receiver, as liquidator has committed a criminal offence. We only really need focus on the one, we allege he has committed many more, but it would not be right to comment on those at this stage.
We can clearly comment on what is already a matter of public knowledge, due to the admissions put out by Sir Geoffrey Vos himself on 8 February 2019, at paragraph 54 of his own judgment:
“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. This is evidenced by a letter from Mr Hannon to the Court dated 15th May 2018 in respect of a hearing before Snowden J on 16th May 2018″
So on 8 February 2019 it was finally determined by Sir Geoffrey Vos that Mr Hannon was acting as “liquidator of both Earth Energy and Empowering Wind MFC Ltd”. Earth Energy , being Earth Energy Investments LLP.
The criminal summary offence of section 109 of the Insolvency Act 1986
The offence of section 109 of the IA 1986 is an offence committed when a liquidator fails publish notice of his appointment, within 14-days of his appointment date, in the Gazette official public record. If the liquidator fails to do so, he is liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine.
The screenshot below of the Earth Energy Investments LLP Gazette notice history attests that Mr Hannon did not advertise notice of his appointment in the Gazette, proving beyond reasonable doubt that he has committed a criminal offence.
A criminal offence is, for avoidance of doubt, misdealing by a public official. It was clearly referred to in Mr Millinder’s evidence which Vos stated he had been through with ‘meticulous detail.’
14-days from the purported liquidator appointment date, Hannon was subject to a daily default fine. Mr Dionne was the appointed liquidator, not Mr Hannon. Hannon failed to notify his appointment.
Schedule 10 of the Insolvency Act 1986 determines punishment of offences and for the section 109 offence Hannon is proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed, it is subject to a fine of one-fifth of the statutory maximum, plus a daily default fine of one-fiftieth of the statutory maximum.
The statutory maximum is now an unlimited fine. Assuming conservatively in Hannon’s favour, at the Court’s discretion, a fine of £5,000, the daily default fine is £100.
That is a very substantial fine that Hannon has evaded due to corrupt judges and other public officials and lawyers, including Sir Geoffrey Vos and all the judges involved, lying throughout the course of public justice stating there was no fraud, conspiracy or misdealing when they knew there was.
Statutory insolvency set off – the mandatory law of due process
Our investigation revealed that Millinder, majority creditor of both Empowering Wind MFC Ltd and Earth Energy Investments LLP was defrauded due to being dishonestly deprived of a statutory right of which any other creditor or company in his position would have been entitled.
This deprivation, which defeated the long-established anti-deprivation principle, was because both his companies had claims that extinguished the false claims that Middlesbrough FC (“MFC”), owned by the Tory politician, Steve Gibson O.B.E, and that after set off, law determined that the balance owed to the companies were to be collected in by Hannon and distributed as a dividend to Millinder, who was requisite majority creditor.
14.25. —(1) This rule applies in a winding up where, before the company goes into liquidation, there have been mutual dealings between the company and a creditor of the company proving or claiming to prove for a debt in the liquidation.
(2) An account must be taken of what is due from the company and the creditor to each other in respect of their mutual dealings and the sums due from the one must be set off against the sums due from the other.
(3) If there is a balance owed to the creditor then only that balance is provable in the winding up.
(4) If there is a balance owed to the company then that must be paid to the liquidator as part of the assets.
(5) However if all or part of the balance owed to the company results from a contingent or prospective debt owed by the creditor then the balance (or that part of it which results from the contingent or prospective debt) must be paid in full (without being discounted under rule 14.44) if and when that debt becomes due and payable.
In August 2015, MFC sought to prove the sum of what is an unwarranted demand of £256,269.89 against EW, which is the claim they used to forfeit the lease after refusing the connection for the wind turbine project. The Empowering Wind MFC Ltd corresponding claim against MFC exceeded £10 million.
On 12 February 2018, MFC sought to claim £25,000 against Earth Energy Investments LLP. The Earth Energy Investments LLP corresponding cross claim for the assigned investment its directors made in Empowering Wind MFC Ltd was over £900,000.
Acting in fraudulent conspiracy, the corrupt judges involved and the Insolvency Service (including Hannon) defrauded Millinder of over £10 million in breach of their fiduciary duty by abusing their positions of trust, dishonestly failing to administer the mandatory scheme of law of due process that intended Millinder be paid dividends from both companies.
The intent was, as the ordinary man in the pub can gather, to prevent justice being served on MFC and to have defrauded Millinder of over £10 million consequentially.
In Stein v Blake  UKHL 11, at paragraph 7, it was determined that “An obvious occasion for making this calculation will be the lodging of a proof by a creditor against whom the bankrupt had a cross-claim”. The “bankrupt” being either an insolvent individual or company.
Naturally, it is self-evident that MFC never had any claim to prove against either of Millinder’s companies, but yet it is recorded that Mr Hannon accepted a proof of debt of £4,111,894.75 without ever once accounting for set off.
Similarly, even though Millinder’s case was based entirely on the important point of law and a statutory right, there is no single reference to rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 in any of the purported determinations.
Kevin Modiri, is dishonestly depriving someone of a legal right of which they are entitled to obtain pecuniary interest by deception not fraud?
If you answer no, you will be lying, but you would need to explain why.
Therefore, it is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Sir Geoffrey Vos was lying, with intent to pervert, by concealing the truth, that there is fraud, conspiracy and misdealing.
Perverting the course of public justice – just ask Dave
We know what happens to people who lie, when a course of justice is under way with the aim of avoiding the law, or preventing justice being served on themselves or others do we not?
Nobody is above the law, so therefore, what is the difference between Dave McLuckie, who was not so lucky, and the corrupt judge who lies to conceal fraud, conspiracy and misdealing?
Dave McLuckie, the former Chairman of Middlesbrough’s Cleveland Police authority fell from grace when he was jailed for eight months for perverting the course of justice.
What motivates the likes of Kevin Modiri and Nelsons Solicitors to pervert the truth by concealing the lies? Concealing for the collective organisational structure?
We have asked Nelsons Solicitors for comment on this article, along with Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Insolvency Service, Law Society Gazette, the Secretary of State and Judicial Office. We shall publish their comments in a follow up in 2-weeks time.
There’s a cure for corruption and that is transparency. Help us to help you, like, comment and share our report far and wide.