Lady Justice Andrews is proven in this report to have acted with favour and ill will toward an innocent victim of UK Tory Party systemic corruption.
It is the duty of courts and judges to administer law and justice, yet, simply and incontrovertibly, we prove that Lady Justice Andrews, AKA Geraldine Mary Andrews has acted dishonestly whilst occupying judicial office. We adduce conclusive evidence that Geraldine Andrews has acted contrary to the law, breaching her oath of office.
Police in the UK consistently fail to enforce the law, the regulators don’t regulate, so those in power have become a law unto themselves, keeping themselves above it.
Andrews LJ was knowingly conflicted, before she embarked on round two. Round one, from November 2020 – July 2021 was where Andrews and Swift J teamed up to conceal no less than 60 criminal offences, and the criminal property Mr Millinder has been defrauded of, deploying the all proceedings restraint order to conceal the wrongdoing.
In a nutshell – Lady Justice Andrews & Mr Justice Cavanagh affront and misrepresent the law
Andrews LJ and Cavanagh J made knowingly false representations to pervert the course of public justice when it is proven they knew, or ought to have known the representations they were making were false.
Those statements were conveyed to conceal fraud and to prevent justice being served on the offenders, which are the claims against the Club, exceeding £10 million.
At paragraph 8 of the 11th November 2022 judgment:
“8. A further insuperable obstacle is that any claims that might have been pursued by the companies or by the liquidator, had he wished to do so, have long since become timebarred”.
Any judge knows that law imposes a 12-year statute of limitations on actions to recover rights over land. See: section 15.1 of the Limitation Act 1980. That’s 12-years from when the action first originated. Law determined that the claims are not time barred until 19th August 2027.
Essentially, this is all about law. It is the taxpayer who pays these judges, the senior ones near to £200,000 a year to act in a constitutionally proper way, administering justice strictly according to the law, impartially, and in good faith, in other words without ill-will.
Statutory law, which is designed to regulate conduct of all officers under the Crown, is that of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. This is the law designed to protect the people from tyranny / abuse of power from those holding office. The constitutional oaths of office are no longer regulated by government.
Law intends that if an officer under the Crown, member of Parliament, judge or minister breaches one’s oath, then his tenure in office is immediately vitiated.
The British establishment, and we mean central government and ministers, are diminishing the rule of law through blunders, corruption and cronyism.
There is no judicial independence, central government influence outcomes of criminal and civil proceedings. All those responsible for the justice system have broken the law, by failing in their statutory duty in the public interest to “maintain the continued independence of the judiciary“. (See: Section 3 Constitutional Reform Act 2005).
Gross human rights abuses prevail, an attack on we the people, and now Sunak and his cronies who control the judiciary want to tear up the Human Rights Act?
Lady Justice Geraldine Andrews fraudulently misrepresents the law to obtain pecuniary interest by deception
It was Mr Millinder’s case that on the 19th of August 2015, Middlesbrough FC unlawfully forfeited the 26-year leasehold interest his company, Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW“) , and as its parent Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI“).
On the 25th of June 2015 the Club demanded money from EW, threatening to forfeit the lease unless the sum of £256,269.89 was paid. The Club did so after refusing the connection for the wind turbine, when the purpose of the lease, and the former option to lease, was to “construct, connect to the grid and operate” the 136-metre-high wind turbine in the overflow carpark of Riverside Stadium. (“Europe’s first wind powered football stadium“).
The project was ready to construct and had obtained accreditation under OFGEM’s feed-in-tariff scheme which guaranteed EW a minimum tariff over 20 years for electricity sold to EDF Energy (or other suppliers) under power purchase agreements.
The Riverside turbine had favorable wind speed conditions, which were verified by the Met Office and by DNV Garrad Hassan.
The wind turbine, were it not for the Club fraudulently misrepresenting Mr Millinder and EW into completing the long-term lease, would have generated around £500,000 net for EW each year for the turbine’s operational life.
The OFGEM scheme the turbine was registered to receive was linked to the Retail Price Index, so that the tariff increases with inflation. The turbine was to deliver EW a stable, predictable revenue stream of circa £9.2 million net from the turbine.
The simplicity of the Middlesbrough FC wind turbine case
On 15th June 2012 EW completed an option to lease. The option to lease the stadium carpark area for 26 years was to expire on the 14th of October 2012.
On the 2nd of November 2012 the Club agreed to extend the option agreement with EW for six-months, so that EW could first complete the Connection Offer with Northern Powergrid, the Distribution Network Operator (“DNO“), so that power from the turbine could be exported to the grid, whilst delivering power also to the Stadium via a private wire supply.
Between July 2012 – 4th January 2013, the parties jointly negotiated, agreed and completed the Connection Offer with the DNO. The DNO required that the Club took ownership of their two on-site existing dedicated substations, to form a private 11Kv (kilovolt) connection, which in turn, the turbine would make a connection to.
On the 17th of June 2013, EW completed the lease, paying the Club £200,000 for the 26-year lease, a license to “construct, connect to the grid and operate” the wind turbine.
96-days after completing the lease, EW had done as required to discharge the final pre-commencement planning condition so that construction of the turbine could commence.
On the 23rd of September 2013, in the e-mail exhibited below to the Director of Planning Control the Senior Planning Officer at Middlesbrough Council explicitly stated:
The Council received an objection from the Airport, then owned by Peel Holdings, close affiliates of Middlesbrough FC, and indeed with the Council, with Ray Mallon, the former corrupt Cleveland Police detective found guilty of misconduct, who went on to become Mayor of Middlesbrough, whilst acting as consultant for that same Airport.
The Council acted unlawfully, sustaining the planning condition which prevented the wind turbine from lawful operation. It was not until 23rd of December 2014 that Mr Millinder and EW successfully resolved the issue, by lobbying with senior officials at the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), who don’t deal with any members of the public.
Essentially, EW did the job of what the Council should have done before installing the planning condition. The CAA confirmed to the Council that the turbine poses no issue to the Airport whatsoever and can operate unconstrained.
It was not until 23rd December 2014 that the Council removed the condition, after first accepting that EW had done as required to have discharged it, so that the turbine could be “commissioned” (constructed and connected to the grid so it can operate).
The 26-year lease for the land the turbine was to occupy within the Club’s car park provided for 365-days free of rent from which EW was to enjoy, during which, there was an obligation to commission the wind turbine. The delay prevented the turbine from lawful operation due to an unlawful act by the Public Authority.
The wide definition and operative provision of force majeure in the lease and energy supply agreement suspended EW’s obligations under the lease and energy supply agreement because the delay prevented the turbine from being commissioned. Therefore, contractually, EW was, from 23rd December 2014, to enjoy 296-days free of rent as provided for in schedule 7 of the lease, from which to commission the wind turbine.
Under the terms of the lease, the first installment of rent (£15,000), which was £50,000 per annum, was payable by EW to the Club on the 17th of September 2015.
Schedule 5 – Agreements & Declarations – Clause 6 of the wind turbine lease
“6. If either party is prevented for any period of time from performing its obligations under this Lease by reason of Force Majeure that party shall not be in breach of such obligations for so long as and to the extent that such reasons shall subsist”
On the 30th of April 2015 the Club refused the connection, preventing EW from performing on the rights granted.
On the 19th of August 2015, the Club unlawfully forfeited the lease, based on a demand for £75,000 of rent, and an invoice for energy supply in the sum of £181,269.89.
The energy supply agreement between the Club and EW was conditional upon EW’s “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” and “commissioning” of the wind turbine. In absence of Mr Millinder & EW’s “satisfaction in full” of those conditions, there was no “entitlement to agreed output” (agreement to supply the Club any power) and any “Invoicing & payment” was also contractually prohibited.
EW insolvency proceedings & deliberate failure by the court to apply mandatory law of due process
By the 19th of August 2015, EW had a quantified claim against the Club for over £10 million in loss through unlawful forfeiture of the 26-year lease.
It follows that even if the Club did not refuse the connection, they still unlawfully forfeited the lease. Force majeure had effect, suspending EW’s obligation to commission the turbine within the 365-day period provided for free of rent. The act of force majeure occurred just 96-days into that period.
Snippets from the Club’s ex-parte 9 January 2017 injunction application hearing (official hearing transcript)
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.
MR STAUNTON: 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 two thirds 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.
On the 9th of January 2017, in an ex-parte injunction application brought by the Club, Ulick Staunton, counsel acting for the Club, misrepresented the Court in breach of his duty, and lied about the force majeure operative provision within the lease, but in relation to the energy supply agreement, he is recorded on the official transcript as admitting it had effect.
It is therefore proven beyond reasonable doubt it had effect in respect of the lease, in the same operative term, which is why Mr Staunton committed fraud / perjury and denied its existence. On the 9th of January 2017, Counsel for the Club accepted that the EW claim is proven, because “force majeure has effect” as explained above.
Staunton, nor the Club and their lawyers disclosed however, that either the energy supply agreement was conditional, nor that on 30th April 2015 the Club refused the connection. Had they done so, Arnold would not have granted the injunction, but in fact, they withheld all the evidence.
In our report dated 1st December 2022, at page 1, we detailed how the Court, who had the EW claim in their possession, defrauded EW creditors by deliberately failing to have applied statutory set off conferred in rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, because doing so, would have ensured that the claim in the sum of £256,269.89 which the Club used as an excuse to unlawfully forfeit the lease, was to have been set off entirely by the EW quantified claim exceeding £9.2 million plus aggravated damages.
The £256,269.89 claim the Club sought to prove, was however, entirely fraudulent. Law intended that after set off (rule 14.25(1)& rule 14.25(2) the indefensible claim in the sum exceeding £10 million was to be paid to the liquidator as part of the assets (rule 14.25(4) & rule 14.25(5).
The dividends Mr Millinder, requisite majority creditor of both companies have been defrauded of by Mr Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, who acted in conspiracy with the Club and their lawyers, when the claim was due and payable from 19th August 2015, now exceeds £20 million with standard interest accruing from the date the Club unlawfully forfeited.
Corruption runs deep and is systemic throughout public judicial and regulatory public bodies
A series of in excess of jurisdiction civil restraint orders were deployed by the corrupt establishment to conceal this lawlessness and blatant criminal fraud, to prevent justice being served on the corrupt lawyers, acting ultimately for the Tory Teesside politician and Chairman of the Club, Steve Gibson OBE.
Steve Gibson sits on the Middlesbrough Football Club Foundation Charity with Ray Mallon, who orchestrated the delay with the Airport when he was Mayor and head of the Council whilst acting for the Airport throughout 2013 – 2015.
Lady Justice Andrews committed fraud in her judgment and misrepresented the law to assist the offenders – perverting the course of justice
We exhibit the 26-year long-term registered leasehold interest on the title of Riverside Stadium, Middlesbrough, in favour of EW.
The ordinary informed lay observer can easily determine that EW’s claim against the Club is for unlawful forfeiture of the lease, a which is a quantified claim to recover rights over land, also a claim encompassing contractually tortious fraudulent misrepresentation.
At paragraph 7 of her void committal judgment dated 7th November 2022, Andrews committed fraud by abuse of position to make a gain for the corrupt establishment, and to cause loss to Mr Millinder:
“The Respondent shall pay the Solicitor General’s costs of the contempt proceedings, summarily assessed in the sum of £40,000”
The order is a nullity and the costs are proceeds of crime, founded by aggravated conspiracy to defraud by the judiciary themselves.
In her void judgment purporting to commit Mr Millinder to prison through the corrupt establishment’s legal entrapment and nullity restraint orders dated 11 November 2023 (made publicly available), Andrews was concealing the fraudulent abuse of position by Hannon.
We exhibit a screen shot of paragraphs 6, 7and 8 of that void, in excess of jurisdiction judgment (a nullity):
Paragraph 6 of the judgment by Andrews conceals the circa £9.2 million claim that was to be mandatorily set off prior to making the insolvency order against EW. (See: Supreme Court decision in Bresco Electrical Services (in liquidation) Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (2020) – paragraphs 27 – 30 of the judgment).
The Supreme Court affirmed in 2020 that the duty to apply set off applies to “future debts”.
The Club’s fraudulent claim, the unwarranted demand used to unlawfully forfeit grew to £541,308.89 and then to over £4.1 million.
Hannon knew of the claim, a very substantial cash asset that was to be distributed as a dividend to Mr Millinder, requisite majority creditor with 86% of the voting interest. On 31st March 2020 Hannon dissolved EW to defraud Mr Millinder of those dividends. Criminal property as in section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
At paragraph 8, to conceal the criminal property, the claim Mr Millinder has been defrauded of which was to be mandatorily paid to him as a dividend, as intended by law in rule 14.25(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016, Andrews committed fraud by false representation and stated that the claims vested in both companies for unlawful forfeiture has “long since been time barred”.
Any judge, or indeed any lay person would know that a claim for unlawful forfeiture of a long term lease is a claim to recover rights over land. It is proven beyond reasonable doubt therefore that Andrews knew the statement she made was false, and that it was made to make a gain and to cause loss, very substantial loss of over £10 million, to Mr Millinder.
Section 15(1) of the Limitation Act 1980
We refer to section 15.1 of the Limitation Act 1980, and we cite the law:
We exhibit below the EW 26-year registered leasehold interest in land at Riverside Stadium, MiddlesbroughCompletion_of_Lease_registration_Land_Registry
The judicial oath of office – Lady Justice Andrews breached it and so has Mr Justice Cavanagh, her accomplice
The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 is designed to prevent the people from being subjected to fraud, ,tyranny and general abuse of power by those who occupy judicial office:
I, Geraldine Mary Andrews , do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Queen Elizabeth the second in the office of Lady Justice of Appeal and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. So help me God
Those who breach their oaths must be held to account for the damage they caused to so many thousands who have been defrauded in the hands of the corrupt judiciary of the United Kingdom.
Help us to help you
There’s a cure for corruption and that is transparency. Please like, comment and share this article far and wide.
We rely on donations to perform on our work in the public interest. It is our mission to restore the rule of law, to prosecute and remove corrupt central government and judicial officials who abuse their positions contrary to law and the public interest. We greatly appreciate contributions, no matter how big or small. Together, we will make the difference.