Precis – The UK is the most corrupt country in the world, they just conceal the full extent of it
Lord Justice Nugee we allege that Nugee was promoted to a Lord Justice of Appeal for following orders. A typical trait of systemic corruption, compliance is rewarded. The UK justice system is, we have found, utterly corrupt from the top down, Sir Geoffrey Vos, installed as Master of the Rolls, head of civil justice is evidenced to have been concealing fraud. They are all retained in office by Tory Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab, lawlessness prevails.
The corrupt UK Government and its politically controlled judges provide impunity to fellow fraudster lawyers and insolvency practitioners who work to terrorise the British people in the name of law and justice, when there is none.
This outrageous corruption is coming from the Treasury, the Tory Cabinet and the Law Ministers, who have been concealing serious criminality to provide impunity to the offenders, their conduct is what is known as conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Tory party members and their affiliates are always made over and above the law, whilst everyone else is penalised.
This case originated because Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW“) a sole purpose renewable energy development company owned by Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI”) entered an option to lease agreement with Middlesbrough Football Club (“MFC“), from which to “construct, connect to the grid and operate” a 1.5 mega watt, 130 metre high wind turbine that was to be “Europe’s first wind powered football stadium“.
MFC, owned by the corrupt Tory Teesside politician, Steve Gibson OBE colluded with corrupt central government officials, who worked to assist them in evading justice after they defrauded the developer of the wind turbine and over 3/4 of a million invested in it.
Chronology – Lord Justice Nugee & his corrupt cohorts worked to pervert the course of justice
After expending over £770,000 in taking the project to a construction ready stage, on the 7th of March 2015 the Club made a ransom demand for payment that was not contractually owed. EW offered to deposit the sum in Escrow, pending resolution by an independent arbitrator. Prior to arbitration taking place, just 15-days later, on the 30th of April 2015 MFC refused the wind turbine connection, preventing the turbine from being constructed, connected to the grid and operated.
On the 25th of June 2015, MFC committed the criminal offence of blackmail, making an unwarranted demand with menaces in the sum of £256,269.89 (the sum of their ransom demand), knowing that no money was owed.
On the 29th of June 2015 EW assigned the investment it made in the project to EEI, so that there were two causes of action, with EW recovering the consequential loss, and EEI recovering the investment made by its director in EW. On the 30th of June 2015 notice of the assignment was served on MFC.
On the 19th of August 2015 MFC unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their blackmail.
On the 19th of September 2016, MFC attended a winding up proceeding against EW and fraudulently claimed to be a creditor in the sum of £256,269.89, their blackmail used to unlawfully forfeit the lease.
On the 9th of January 2017 MFC attended an ex-parte (without notice) financial injunction hearing in the High Court in London to defraud EEI of £530,000, which was part of the assigned investment it sought to recover by statutory demand, with the remainder of the investment vested in EW.
The EEI statutory demand was indefensible, founded by the claim for proven unlawful forfeiture of the lease, and law that commits the assignment as being effective from the date notice of assignment was served. The corrupt, politically controlled judges worked with the offenders to defraud EEI anyway.
The meaning of fraud
Fraud is the intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right of which he / she is entitled. That is precisely how the UK kleptocracy of criminals purporting to be judges and their order givers operate. This case presents the ultimate example, with hard evidence.
The £530,000 debt constituted part of the investment made by Mr Millinder in the wind turbine company which he assigned to EEI on the 29th of June 2015. The corrupt judges involved assisted the offenders, affronting the law on assignment to ensure EEI and Mr Millinder were defrauded of not only the assigned investment vested in EEI, but also the claim for unlawful forfeiture of the wind turbine lease (a multi-million pound asset), that was to be mandatorily paid to EW creditors.
In tandem, they defrauded Mr Millinder of his democratic rights in law as requisite majority creditor of EW, EEI’s subsidiary to ensure that MFC were provided impunity by sustaining a £4.1 million proof of debt claim which grew from their blackmail.
The corrupt, politically controlled judiciary and the roles they played in the conspiracy
We allege and evidence that Lord Justice Nugee, and all the judges involved in this case have made numerous false representations, concealing evidence and evading the issues at the heart of the case which needed trying. There never was a determination at all.
The systemically corrupt police forces in the UK deliberately failed to investigate after the directors of EW and EEI made complaints, again, to conceal the offending and to prevent members of their criminal racketeering enterprise from being prosecuted.
We expose who they are and how successive corrupt judges colluded and conspired to pervert the course of justice.
Middlesbrough FC unlawfully forfeited the wind turbine lease after refusing the connection
The proceedings came about because Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW”) owned by Paul Millinder, completed an option to lease the overflow carpark of the Middlesbrough Football Club stadium from which to construct, connect to the grid and operate a 1.5 mega watt wind turbine that was to power the stadium. The turbine was to provide free electricity to the stadium via a private network connection that MFC were to take ownership of to accommodate the connection for the wind turbine.
During the option period, MFC jointly negotiated and agreed the connection with the developer in open email correspondences. The links go to incontrovertible evidence proving that the Club agreed the connection between October 2012 and January 2013, when the connection configuration was finalised.
The lease
The wind turbine lease was completed on the 17th of June 2013 after the connection configuration was finalised during the option period, when it was an option, if either party became aggrieved with the technical or commercial parameters, to negate without financial commitment.
Schedule 7 of the lease (rent) provided for 365-days free of rent from which the developer was to commission the wind turbine. The lease encompassed a force majeure provision to protect the developer in the case of delays caused by third parties beyond its reasonable control. The effect of the force majeure provision was that:
“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”
Just 96-days into the 365-day period the project suffered a delay of force majeure due to maladministration by the planning authority who failed in their duty to discharge a planning condition for the wind turbine planning permission which prevented the wind turbine from lawful operation.
Force majeure therefore suspended any obligation of the developer to commission the wind turbine and the 365-day period free of rent from 23rd September 2013. On 23rd December 2014, the developer successfully resolved the issue, with Middlesbrough Council confirming, effectively that there was no requirement for the condition in the first place.
On the 23rd of December 2014, Middlesbrough Council removed the planning condition, proving that the delay was caused by their maladministration and was entirely beyond reasonable control of the developer.
We evidence below that on the 23rd of September 2013, the senior planning officer of the Council admitted that the developer had done as required to have discharged the condition:
From the 23rd of December 2014 when the developer had successfully resolved the delay constituting force majeure, the provision in schedule 7 of the lease, the 365-days free of rent from which to commission the turbine, was unsuspended. The developer has 296-days free of rent from which to commission the wind turbine.
The ransom demand and blackmail by Middlesbrough FC
By 5th January 2015, the wind turbine project was ready to construct. On the 4th of February 2015, the developer sought to implement the connection so that it could “construct, connect to the grid and operate” the turbine as intended by the option agreement, lease and the energy supply agreement.
On the 4th of February 2015 the Distribution Network Operator, Northern Powergrid called on MFC to complete the transfer of ownership connection agreement enabling MFC to take ownership of their dedicated on site substations so that the wind turbine connection could be established.
After failing whatsoever to address the agreement between Northern Powergrid and MFC, on the 7th of March 2015, MFC made a ransom demand for payment in the sum of £256,269.89 of which £75,000 was for rent, knowing that no rent was owed (due to the delay of force majeure they knew about) and £181,269.89, which was for energy supply, when there was no agreement by the developer to supply energy.
Essentially, on the 30th of April 2015, Robin Bloom, Steve Gibson’s right hand man and general legal counsel for the Club completely “u-turned” on their express obligation to create the private network connection and outright refused the connection:
From the 30th of April 2015, force majeure kicked in again in favour of EW in respect of the unforeseen and unreasonable delay caused by MFC themselves. On the 7th of March 2015, the developer had 222-days free of rent provided for in schedule 7 of the lease from which to commission the wind turbine. To be commissioned, the wind turbine required the gird connection, which MFC “U-turned” on and refused.
The blackmail and unlawful forfeiture of the lease
On the 25th of June 2015, MFC then blackmailed the developer, demanding payment of £256,269.89 with the threat to forfeit the lease unless the developer paid them the sum of their ransom demand when any lay person could determine that no money was owed. On the 25th of June 2015, the developer still had 184-days free of rent from which to commission the wind turbine, proving that even if MFC did not refuse the connection on the 30th of April 2015, their demand was still unwarranted.
On the 29th of June 2015, the developer assigned all the investment made in EW to EEI so that EEI recovered the lost investment and EW recovered the consequential loss. Both companies therefore had claims against MFC by 30th of June 2015 when notice of the assignment was served on them.
On the 19th of August 2015, MFC unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their blackmail in the sum of £256,269.89, but by that date, no rent was owed and no energy supply was owed. £181,269.89 was an invoice for energy supply payments when any “entitlement to agreed output” (agreement by the developer to supply power), was conditional upon the developer’s “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” and “commissioning” of the wind turbine.
It is evidential that MFC and Bloom in particular, being a lawyer, knew that he refused the connection. Likewise, MFC and their lawyers knew that to operate, the turbine needs that connection, just as they knew (because they negotiated and completed the energy supply agreement), that the agreement was conditional and in absence of the developer’s “satisfaction in full” of those two fundamental conditions precedent, any “invoicing & payment” was contractually prohibited and there was no agreement to supply power.
The case in the developer’s favour was proven before proceedings ever started. The EW claim against MFC is indefensible, for the claim for unlawful forfeiture cannot be disputed for the reasons made only too clear above.
The EEI claim against MFC is also indefensible, for it originated by the assigned investment and section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 affirms that the assignment of the investment is effective from the date notice was served.
The mandatory duty of the Court to apply insolvency set off
On the 19th of September 2015, under MFC’s instruction, Ulick Staunton, counsel acting for MFC was instructed to claim in court that EW was indebted to them in the sum of their blackmail, the £256,269.89.
We alleged that Staunton colluded with Registrar Stephen Baister to pre-engineer the outcome by failing to apply mandatory law knowing that the Club never had any claim against either of the wine turbine companies.
The hearing of the winding up petition against EW had previously been adjourned so that EW could complete a C.V.A with its creditors. EW completed the CVA with its creditors, MFC were never creditors, they all knew that. 10-days prior to the hearing, the developer’s lawyers submitted the EW claim to the Court in hard copy in preparation for the hearing.
It is long established in law that the duty of the Court to apply insolvency set off is mandatory, as affirmed in the scheme of law conferred in rule 14.25 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016. Operating in colluding with Staunton, Baister wilfully failed to administer the mandatory law to assist MFC and their corrupt lawyers in using the façade of insolvency to defraud the developer, who was requisite majority creditor of EW.
The Supreme Court judgment affirmed that the duty to apply set off is mandatory
In Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 the Supreme Court affirmed that the legal duty of the courts to apply insolvency set off is mandatory and is considered an automatic right. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment is where the Supreme Court confirmed that:
29. ..the statutory regime for set-off in insolvency, now to be found in IR 14.25 operates upon an altogether more comprehensive and rigorous basis. First, it applies to every type of pre-liquidation mutual dealing, and also to secured, contingent and future debts: see IR 14.25(1), (2), (6) and (7). Secondly, whereas legal or equitable set-off is essentially optional, taking effect only if the cross-claim is pleaded as a defence to the claim, insolvency set-off is mandatory, and takes effect upon the commencement of the insolvency (the “cut-off date”). It is said to be self-executing, and for some purposes the original cross-claims are replaced by a single claim for the balance: see IR 14.25(3) and (4). Thus the separate cross-claims may no longer be assigned after the cut-off date: see Stein v Blake [1996] AC 243. But the separate claims may survive for other purposes: see Wight v Eckhardt Marine GmbH [2003] UKPC 37; [2004] 1 AC 147, paras 26-27 per Lord Hoffmann. One example is the balance of contingent or prospective claims under IR 14.25(5). Within the liquidation, a net balance owing to the creditor must be pursued by proof of debt in the ordinary way. The liquidator is entitled to be paid the full amount of any net balance owing by the creditor, and may exercise any available remedies for its quantification and recovery, including litigation, arbitration or ADR: see IR 14.25(4) and (5).
30.The identification of the net balance is to be ascertained by the taking of an account: see IR 14.25(2). If there is no dispute as to the existence and amount of the claims and cross-claims this is in practice a matter of simple arithmetic, the net balance being the difference between the aggregate of the claims and the aggregate of the cross-claims. But if any of the claims and cross-claims are in dispute, then those disputes will need first to be resolved, by reference to the individual merits of each, before the arithmetic resumes: see again Stein v Blake (supra) per Lord Hoffmann at 255E-G.
Baister deliberately failed to apply set off knowing that MFC’s claim was fraudulent and wound up EW to assist them and their corrupt lawyers in using insolvency to defraud creditors. As a result of this corruption, on the 1st of December 2016, Bloom of MFC submitted a proof of debt in the sum of their blackmail to Anthony Hannon, the delinquent Official Receiver of London, who was installed by the corrupt government to assist the offenders in using insolvency to defraud. Their actions affront the entire scheme of law conferred in rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, as well as the later Supreme Court judgment of 2020.
Rule 14.25(3) affirms that only after application of set off can a creditor go on to prove a debt. On the 20th of December 2016, Bloom of MFC submitted a further proof of debt, from the same non existent source as the first, in the sum of £541,308.89 of which £75,000 was rent and £466,308.89 was purportedly for energy supply.
The statutory demand and the EEI debt owed by MFC
On the 6th of January 2017, EEI served MFC its statutory demand for payment of £530,000, constituting 69% of the assigned investment (£770,000) at Riverside Stadium front desk in hard copy. The statutory demand was served along with the assignment, the 3 grid connection contracts, the correspondence with Middlesbrough Council proving that the delay was force majeure, the planning decision notice and email evidence proving that on the 30th of April 2015 MFC refused the connection, preventing the developer from performing on the rights granted by the lease and energy supply agreement.
Knowing that the demand is indefensible, acting with premeditated intent to defraud EEI, MFC and their lawyers dishonestly withheld 172-pages of witness evidence that proved the demand, whilst Bloom lied in his 08/01/2017 witness statement and denied all knowledge of the assignment he by then had in his possession 3 times over, first on the 30th June 2015, then on the 3rd of January 2017 by email (which he responded to) and then again in hard copy by process server on the 6th of January 2017 with the demand.
It was proven, indefensibly, that Bloom knew the statement he was making was false. Below is paragraph 22.2 of his 8th January 2017 witness statement for their without notice financial injunction proceeding:
The report to systemically corrupt Cleveland Police – Middlesbrough FC supporters
On the 9th of January 2017, Mr Millinder, the developer discovered, after being served the material used at their ex-parte hearing by MFC’s corrupt lawyers, that 172-pages of witness evidence had been fraudulently withheld. He immediately reported the fraud to Cleveland Police, the Club’s local force, as the crimes had been committed there when Bloom and his conspirators premeditated the non disclosure and his false witness statement.
It took the corrupt Cleveland Police force over 6-months to fail to investigate the proven crimes before they dismissed the investigation without doing anything whatsoever other than perverting the course of justice to prevent justice being served on their home team.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website, it is affirmed that the criminal offence of fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006) is complete when the defendant dishonestly fails to disclose information they are under a legal duty to disclose with intent to make a gain or to cause loss to another.
It is long established that all ex-parte (without notice) applicants in financial remedy proceedings are under a legal duty to disclose all material facts and information relevant to the case, even if the information and facts are detrimental to the case they are seeking to advance. The duty to disclose continues right up until the first hearing on notice in those proceedings.
We quote from the CPS website, the actus reus of the offence:
“There is no requirement that the failure to disclose must relate to “material” or “relevant “information, nor is there any de minimis provision. If a Defendant disclosed 90% of what he was under a legal duty to disclose but failed to disclose the (possibly unimportant) remaining 10%, the actus reus of the offence could be complete. Under such circumstances the Defendant would have to rely on the absence of dishonesty. Such cases can be prosecuted under the Act if the public interest requires it…”
“It is no defence that the Defendant was ignorant of the existence of the duty, neither is it a defence in itself to claim inadvertence or incompetence. In that respect, the offence is one of strict liability. The defence must rely on an absence of dishonesty and the burden, of course, lies with the prosecutor”
There is indisputably overwhelming public interest in prosecuting corrupt lawyers who owe a duty to the Court in maintaining the rule of law in full and fair disclose, but use ex-parte financial proceedings to defraud innocent parties.
The corrupt, politically influenced Cleveland Police had in their possession, the bundle of documentation used in the ex-parte, 9th January 2017 hearing, which attested that the 172-pages of witness evidence was withheld, in tandem with Bloom’s false witness statement where he lied about the assignment on the 8th January 2017 proving that both his lie about the assignment and his failure to disclose was of pre-meditated dishonest intent.
It was not until 5th February 2018 that the developer was able to bring the case into the civil High Court of injustice to deal with the fraudulent non-disclosure. On the 30th of January 2018 Mr Millinder of EEI made an application to set aside the order of 9th of January 2017 and the subsequent order of 16th of January 2017 as both orders were proven to have been obtained by fraud. This is where Lord Justice Nugee (Christopher George Nugee) came to the aid of the defendants.
The 5th February 2018 hearing before Lord Justice Nugee – Snippets from the judgment
(a) Paragraph 3:
“… it was, in effect, all Middlesbrough’s fault for failing to enter into an agreement called the connection agreement. The upshot of that was that EW was unable to generate any money, that meant it was neither able to pay rent under the lease, nor to pay what were quite substantial charges ostensibly payable under something called the energy supply agreement“
(b) Paragraph 4:
“on the basis of those matters Middlesbrough demanded payment of money from EW, terminated the Lease for non payment and subsequently appeared as a supporting creditor”
(c) Paragraph 5:
“It is now suggested by Mr Millinder on behalf of EEI that the order of 16th January was obtained as a result of material non disclosure before Mr Justice Arnold on the without notice application on the 9th January. He relies for this on non disclosure of a large number of documents which, as I understand it, supported the statutory demand and which explained the background to the dispute, in particular the connection agreement which, in his submissions to me, he explained was the foundation of his argument that the project was, effectively, killed by Middlesbrough”.
(d) Paragraph 6:
“It is not disputed that those documents were not put before Mr Justice Arnold. I was also shown a note of the hearing in which Mr Staunton, who appeared for Middlesbrough then as he does for Middlesbrough today, says this:
“There is a definition of force majeure in the lease. There is no other reference to force majeure in the lease.”
That was something he repeated before me, but in fact, there was a provision in the lease at schedule 5, paragraph 6, which provided that:
“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 to which such reason shall subsist”
(e) Paragraph 7:
“Ms Jones suggested that the non disclosure of the material which Mr Millinder relies on was undoubtedly material”.
Ms Jones is Elizabeth Jones QC, a Deputy High Court Judge of the same court. Clearly, by Lord Justice Nugee’s own admission at paragraph 5 of his judgment, the information withheld was the information that supported the demand, therefore it is indisputably material information.
(f) Paragraph 8:
“In this case, two separate grounds were advanced by Middlesbrough, both in the evidence and by Mr Staunton before Mr Justice Arnold. One related to the underlying nature of the claim by EEI, which was a question as to whether it was right that it was Middlesbrough’s fault that the project had collapsed and whether there was a cause of action for the sums which had been thrown away as a result, and it does seem to me that the bulk of the non disclosure went to that issue”.
“The other was a question as to whether EEI had any cause of action vested in it at all”.
It was once again admitted that the bulk of the fraudulent non-disclosure went to the issue in proving that it was Middlesbrough FC’s fault that the project collapsed (stating only the obvious), but Lord Justice Nugee, being the criminal that he is, was working for the offenders (perverting the course of justice).
The collusion was coming from the Tory criminal racketeering enterprise who instructed their team of judicial fraudsters to continually assist the offenders in defrauding Mr Millinder whilst ensuring they were provided impunity.
Lord Justice Nugee committed fraud by false representation at paragraph 10 of his judgment
The original terms of the assignment:
Lord Justice Nugee’s fraud by false representation:
Knowing that the assignment resolution is absolute, Lord Justice Nugee committed fraud by false representation whilst he perverted the course of justice to make his corrupted version at paragraph 10 of his judgment not absolute, relying on his falsely represented version in his judgment:
Lord Justice Nugee negated to account for the fact that it is notice of assignment that makes the assignment effectual in law, rather than service of the assignment resolution itself.
Here is the notice of assignment which was served on MFC on the 30th of June 2015, the cover letter itself is notice of the absolute assignment:
assignment-coverletter-29-06-15Knowing that the statutory demand cannot be disputed, Lord Justice Nugee worked to assist the offenders, aiding and abetting their serious criminal fraud, perverting the course of justice and awarding MFC and their corrupt lawyers £10,000 whilst dismissing EEI’s proven case in setting aside the orders founded by that criminal fraud.
As a result of Nugee’s acts of corruption, the fraudulently obtained consent order of 16/01/2017 (obtained by fraudulent non disclosure) manifested and the judicial fraudsters consistently upheld that EEI had consented to paying MFC the sum of £25,000 for their criminal fraud.
Fraudulent non disclosure of the 11th January 2017 Penningtons Manches LLP complaint of non disclosure
In breach of MFC’s continuing legal duty to disclose any material information or change in circumstances, they fraudulently failed to disclose the complaint by EEI’s lawyers of fraudulent non-disclosure which affirmed that EEI did not consent to paying costs. Mr Millinder did not want to do anything that could frustrate the ongoing police investigation from 9th January 2017, so this letter was sent, knowing that the offenders were under a legal duty to have disclosed it.
It is self-revealing that disclosure of that letter would have resulted in any judge (who was not absolutely corrupt) in discovering the significant non disclosure and that there was no consent to pay costs, and the order of 16th January 2017 would not have been made, the injunction is proven to have been founded by criminal fraud on 2 counts:
Exhibit-Penningtons-11.01.2017The £25,000 proceeds of crime founded by 2 counts of criminal fraud was then used to wind up EEI
Just 4-days after the pre-determined hearing before Lord Justice Nugee (fraud and perversion of the course of justice), MFC’s corrupt lawyers presented a without notice winding up petition against EEI. Their petition was for their fraudulently obtained £25,000 proceeds of crime, knowing of the assigned investment which extinguished their fraudulent claim by over 30 times, and their own barrister’s admission in court on the 5th of February 2018 that:
It is evidenced on the transcript of the hearing that both Lord Justice Nugee and Staunton both knew that the assignment was effective, law affirms it to be so, but yet Staunton sought to rely on the perjury (contempt of court) by Bloom to shun that. Nugee followed up by committing fraud by false representation and negating whatsoever to account for the notice of assignment itself.
On 28th March 2018 EEI was fraudulently wound up for the £25,000 proceeds of crime – The corrupt Court once again wilfully failed to apply insolvency set off
On the 28th of March 2018, with acute knowledge that EEI’s claim (the sum of the demand) extinguished MFC’s £25,000 proceeds of crime, once again failed in its mandatory duty to account for set off to assist the offenders, aiding and abetting their criminality.
Staunton then committed fraud by false representation, and in the developer’s absence, it is evidenced on the transcript of the proceeding which was later obtained and adduced as evidence that:
MR STAUNTON: Indeed, but that matter has been fully ventilated in front of Judge Jones, terminating Monday of this week when he dismissed (inaudible) application. I can explain what that is. And also, the adjournment to 10th June is because he wanted to make a second application, the first having been dismissed by Mr Justice Nugee on 5th February. Can we go back? Earth Energy has a fully owned subsidiary, Empowering Wind, which is now in the process of being wound up. The liquidator is Mr Hammond from the OR’s office. The subsidiary had an agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner has, as part of that group, terminated the agreement and also a lease underlying it and Mr Millinder then said, “Well, the subsidiary has a significant claim for damages against Middlesbrough”, but it never brought any proceedings.
JUDGE BARBER: It’s not a cross-claim then.
MR STAUNTON: That is the cross-claim.
JUDGE BARBER: Well, it’s not a cross-claim though, is it?
MR STAUNTON: Well, I – in my submission, no
Then on the 11th of April 2018, Staunton admitted what he did on the 5th of February 2018 in respect of the assigned investment he has known about since 9th of January 2017, and that MFC and their corrupt lawyers have known about since 30th June 2015:
MR STAUNTON: –and paras.17 to 24. So there’s a cross claim which extinguishes the liability to pay £25,000
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yeah.
MR STAUNTON: But we see that also was before Judge Barber and she made the Winding Up Order.
MR STAUNTON: There is the cross claim. There is the assignment. So the two grounds upon which Earth Energy invite you to rescind the Winding Up Order were before Judge Barber—-
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes.
MR STAUNTON: –and she considered them. I attended that hearing.
THE CHIEF REGISTRAR: Yes
MR STAUNTON: I explained the situation to her.
The Chief Registrar, Nicholas Norman Briggs, a close personal associate of Staunton, adjourned the proven rescission case in respect of EEI’s fraudulent winding up and factored in HHJ Philip Mark Pelling QC “The executioner” to certify the proven case as “totally without merit” meaning no more or less than bound to fail, providing himself false jurisdiction, acting without any, to fabricate an extended civil restraint order to conceal their criminal conspiracy.
Successive judicial fraudsters, assisted by the delinquent Attorney General and Solicitor General, thereafter concealed all this incontrovertible evidence to prevent justice being served on the offenders whilst oppressively denying Mr Millinder the right to remedy whilst they originated a false instrument “all proceedings restraint order” after the systemically corrupt police all deliberately conceal, as their method of concealment and perversion of the course of justice.
That, in a nutshell, summarises how the UK works. A cesspool of corruption and economic crime governed by amoral dishonest criminals who collude and conspire to pervert the course of justice. The case continues in the Administrative Court, who appear to be continuing the deceit and concealment.
In the next article, we will report on our findings. Lord Justice Nugee, the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor, who are all acutely aware of the issues, have been invited for comment.
