Michael Cross is the news editor for the Law Society Gazette, the mouthpiece for the UK legal sector who appears to publish material to conceal and lend credence to acts of serious fraud and corruption by the politically controlled judiciary of England & Wales.
Michael Cross and the Law Society Gazette twice published propaganda, defaming Paul Millinder (“Millinder“), a wind farm developer and company creditor who was defrauded of his statutory rights by judges and the Official Receiver of the Insolvency Service involved in his case. It is alleged, and there is evidence to substantiate, collusion between Tory Law Ministers in apparent conspiracy to prevent justice being served on Middlesbrough Football Club, owned by Tory Teesside politician, Steve Gibson O.B.E.
The systemic corruption of what was once Great Britain is out of control. The regulators don’t regulate, the courts don’t administer the law, and the police are “soldiers to the kleptocracy” who wilfully fail to prevent or detect crime.
At the heart of the issue are the amoral lawyers in public office from the top down who collude to make one another “above the law”, judges included.
Our readers can download a copy of the article in PDF for circulation or information purposes.
The Law Society Gazette defamatory headlines
‘Incorrigible’ vexatious litigant barred from every court “Litigant who flouted all courts ban jailed for 15 months”
In July 2021 an “all proceedings order” under Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was made by Lady Justice Geraldine Andrews (“Andrews“) and Mr Justice Jonathan Mark Swift (“Swift“) in the Administrative Court It is however evidenced that they concealed fraud and criminal offences during the course of public justice, knowing they had no jurisdiction to do it.
The offences, evidence and facts concealed proved that Millinder’s private criminal prosecutions had “discernable basis in law“. Moreover, there is overwhelming public interest in prosecuting the offenders, yet the corrupt establishment prevented that from happening and the nullity, in excess of jurisdiction restraint order was their method.
In the civil proceedings, Millinder was merely seeking to enforce what law intended to happen in respect of the claims arising through mutual dealings, the mandatory scheme of law in rule 14.25 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016. Once again, discernable basis in law.
The Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical  (para 29) determined that the duty to apply set off of claims applies also to “future debts”:
“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”
The Club’s further fraudulent claims in the sums of £541,308.89 and £4,111.874.75 all grew from the first claim which they sought to prove, which is the blackmail in the sum of £256,269.89. They are “future debts”, but in fact, there was never any debt owed to the Club at all, which is why the court wilfully failed to apply set off.
The issue is that acting according to law did not suit the motive of these conspirators, who sought to sustain knowingly false claims to defraud creditors when law, had it been administered as it was to have been, would have ensured Millinder was not defrauded.
Rule 14.25(3) affirms that after set off, if there is a balance owed to the putative creditor, can that creditor go on to prove in the petition and then in the insolvency. Rule 14.25(4) affirms that if, after set off, there is a balance owing to the company, then the sum must be paid to the liquidator as part of the Company’s assets. (See: REPORT-01-12-2022, page 1).
Notwithstanding the fact that the Club’s claim deployed to unlawfully forfeit is false, had the Court acted lawfully and applied set off, even if it were a genuine claim (which anyone can determine is not), there is a balance owed to EW in the sum of £8,974,826.11 which was to be mandatorily paid to the liquidator as part of the Company’s assets. The claim has always been due and payable, ever since 19th August 2015 when the Club unlawfully forfeited.
In respect of EEI, which was fraudulently wound up on 28th March 2018, the claim was established by unlawful forfeiture of the lease, and the assignment of 29th June 2015. After mandatory set off which the corrupt Court once again wilfully failed to apply, the balance owed to EEI was £914,160.91, yet there was never a debt on which the Club’s petition was based, only fraud and proceeds of crime.
Is it true that Millinder is a vexatious litigant? The answer is self revealing, and that is, if any of Millinder’s applications have discernable basis in law, then he is not.
The answer is self-revealing, Millinder’s applications have discernable basis in law. Firstly, because his civil case is founded by 3 sets of fundamentally defective insolvency proceedings founded by fraudulent maladministration by the judiciary. Secondly, because there are no less than 60 criminal offences proven to have been committed against him and that therefore the allegation is that he is a vexatious litigant is false and is extremely damaging to Millinder’s business reputation as an international energy developer.
Is it true that Millinder is “jailed”?
The answer is no, Millinder is not jailed he is non-domicile (permanently non-UK resident), has committed no offence and is not going to be jailed. The statement is likewise false and is extremely damaging. Millinder told us he has no plans to return to the UK due to the appalling abuse he has suffered. Yesterday, he told us:
“My position is clear, one cannot breach a nullity, for a nullity is void from the outset, and there was nothing for me to have been in contempt of.
I will never return to the UK after being persecuted and tortured by taxpayer funded state terrorists and fraudsters in judicial and public office. They set out with ill will from the outset, acting lawlessly, covering for each other, and then concealing the criminal property I have been defrauded of.
I quote, ‘Nobody is above the supremacy of the rule of law’, and ‘where there is wrongdoing, there must be remedy’. It is not true, the corrupt British establishment of vindictive, amoral fraudster lawyers rallies around to ensure that fellow corruptors are always made ‘above the law’. The classic example is the recent sentence of corrupt lawyer, Stephen David Jones. Even a case so obvious proving that Jones had defrauded the US firm of over £10 million when funds were wired to his client account, the Law Ministers in charge of the CPS (and police), wilfully failed to act.
I will fight for my rights and for justice, and I will not be unlawfully restrained by the very same set of offenders who defrauded me of my rights in the first place. The UK has become a lawless rogue state governed by human rights abusing criminal offenders who all look out for one another. No business or individual is safe”
P. Millinder – 19 December 2022
It is proven that there was never jurisdiction for the Law Ministers or the judges they conspired with to make an order against Millinder under Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act and that therefore the decision is a nullity. (See: REPORT-01-12-2022 page 83 of the PDF).
The defamation has caused prolonged and serious financial and reputational damage to Millinder. Every time someone searches his name, they are faced with the defamatory articles, fraudulent court orders, lies and dishonest concealment.
At page 3 of our report, our headlines, the self-explanatory table of contents, we reveal the extent of the corruption and fraud inflicted on Millinder over six-years by the judiciary. It is proven that the judges defrauded him of his lawful rights, and consistently, of his right to a fair and unbiased trial. It is evident that the judges themselves committed multiple counts of fraud by false representation.
In truth and reality, there was never a debt owed to Middlesbrough FC (“Club“), yet Millinder was defrauded of over £10 million which he would have received in dividend payments as law intended, were it not for the corrupt judiciary wilfully failing to apply that mandatory law of due process, not once, but twice, against Millinder’s companies.
Anthony Hannon, the Official Receiver of London was installed by former the Chief Insolvency Registrar to act as liquidator, assisting the Club using façade of insolvency law to defraud creditors.
Like Stephen David Jones, Hannon is alleged to have committed two counts of fraud by abuse of position, which crossed over with 22 criminal offences he is proven to have committed in his role as liquidator of Millinder’s sole purpose company, Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW“), and then as purported liquidator of Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI“). Evidence, which is a matter of public record, proves that Hannon was never lawfully appointed as liquidator of EEI. Hannon installed himself as liquidator of EEI, after defrauding Millinder and his fellow creditors of EW, solely to defraud him of the indefensible claim that was to be mandatorily paid as a dividend to Millinder, its sole creditor.
Unlike Jones, who was recently jailed for 12-years, after the corrupt establishment covered up for him, Hannon remains at large, because the Attorney General’s Office, the judiciary and police, covered it up for him also. There is some synergy.
Evidence to prove the offences committed by Hannon are a matter of public record, and we synergise those offences under Schedule 10 of the Insolvency Act 1986, with the originating driving points case in Huhne, Pryce, Briscoe where all were jailed for perverting the course of public justice over the originating driving points offence.
A course of public justice was underway, and 15 judges, and the Law Ministers acted in conspiracy to prevent justice being served on Hannon and the lawyers he was conspiring with. Unlike Constance Briscoe, a recorder judge, all these judges were in judicial office at the time, and the offending is particularly protracted and aggravated.
A course of public justice was underway, 15 judges and the Law Ministers acted in conspiracy to prevent justice being served on Hannon, the Club and their lawyers. Unlike Constance Briscoe, a recorder judge, all these judges were in judicial office at the time, and the offending is particularly protracted and aggravated.
Reporting on the case during the Briscoe trial, the Guardian tabloid stated:
“Briscoe, 56, a criminal lawyer and author, took a “calculated risk” to deliberately manipulate evidence and deceive her own jury by altering a document but was caught “red-handed” by the assiduous work of police and forensic scientists, Southwark crown court heard”
In the present case, Nugee, now Lord Justice Nugee was caught red handed manipulating evidence at paragraph 10 of his 5th February 2018 judgment. Nugee is alleged to have perverted the course of justice to prevent the corrupt lawyers and the Club from being prosecuted for what is the most serious case of fraud by failing to disclose information by lawyers in the history of UK law. We presented this evidence to the delinquent Tory Law Ministers and the Administrative Court, they all covered it up. Cover ups is what they do best.
After finding that the assignment of 30th June 2015 is effective, Nugee committed fraud, falsely representing his corrupted version of the absolute assignment, to make his version not absolute, because law affirms that “any absolute assignment, of which notice has been served on the debtor, is effectual in law”. He did so to prevent justice being served on the offenders, and to defraud Millinder of the indefensible statutory demand originating the Club’s prolific fraudulent non-disclosure.
Nugee found that force majeure had effect in the lease, finding that the claim for unlawful forfeiture cannot be defended. (See: REPORT-01-12-2022 page 75 of the PDF, reading section 11.a – 11.f at page 76)
Nothing in Millinder’s case was determined and in November 2020 the High Court confirmed that fact
From the official transcript of the proceeding in the High Court Rolls Building on 6th November 2020:
Fancourt J: Well, it seems to me the position is that the, the validity of the assignment by EW MFC to EE was never actually decided by a judge at a, at a trial.
Fancourt J: But there is no, there is, the point has never actually squarely been decided at a, at any sort of trial, has it?
Mr Ohrenstein: There has not been a trial of these matters
Fancourt J: The Chancellor was saying was that, that the underlying substantive issues have never in fact been tried, that there was an opportunity to raise such substantive issues at an earlier time, but they were not taken as points at the right time and, because of orders that were then made, it is too late to try to raise them now. That, that is really his line of reasoning, I think.
Fancourt knew that judges in the case had twice fraudulently abused their positions by deliberately failing to apply the mandatory law in set off. The “points at the right time” were prior to making the insolvency orders against EW and EEI as law intended.
In 2020, the Supreme Court in the Bresco case also affirmed that if the claims through mutual dealings are disputed, then the dispute must first be resolved, prior to set off in rule 14.25(1) and 14.25(2) being applied.
Paragraph 30 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco:
“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”
The fact is that law commits the assignment as being effective, and the claim for unlawful forfeiture cannot be defended, so they concealed everything to assist the offenders. It was for this reason the judges failed to apply mandatory set off.
Up until 6th November 2020, and thereafter nothing was ever determined, because all the judges, including Fancourt, Miles, Swift, Andrews and Cavanagh perverted the course of justice.
Interestingly, we evidence that Millinder’s private criminal prosecutions were in fact deleted from the court’s records, and were never in fact determined at all either, but the purported determination was in fact by the corrupt Judge, Michael Fanning, when law precluded him from having jurisdiction to determine it anyway. (See REPORT-01-12-2022: page 101, reading to page 105, section 23.c).
Notably Michael Cross of the Law Society Gazette published Lady Justice Andrew’s comment affronting the law and lending credence to a nullity
“There is absolutely no case for this court to set aside the order and say it is void…Arguments that have been echoed are completely meritless, without foundation and betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the way the courts work. What Mr Millinder and Deuda have failed to grasp is that a court order is a valid court order unless and until it is set aside.‘ Andrews LJ – 1st November 2022
Andrews is affronting the authorities of the superior courts and statutory law itself. It has long been the law that if an order is void, it is “automatically void” and everything founded upon it is also void from the outset. Andrews was only installed back in the case to cover up for fellow delinquent lawyers and public officials.
In MacFoy v United Africa Company Limited  3 All ER 1169 Denning LJ in the Court of Appeal expressed it this way:
“This is the same as saying that it was void and not merely voidable. The distinction between the two has been repeatedly drawn. If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse”.
The House of Lords, the Highest Court of the Land affirmed that the acts carried out by the judiciary in Millinder’s case are nullity, void from the outset
In Anisminic 1969, the House of Lords affirmed at paragraph 170 that:
“They say that” determination” means a real determination and does not include an apparent or purported determination which in the eyes of the law has no existence because it is a nullity. Or, putting it in another way, if you seek to show that a determination is a nullity you are not questioning the purported determination –you are maintaining that it does not exist as a determination. It is one thing to question a determination which does exist: it is quite another thing to say that there is nothing to be questioned”
Paragraph 155(E) of the judgment:
“What the court must do is to give the statute its proper interpretation and then see whether what was done was within it. It does not matter whether the reason for the inferior tribunal’s action was misconstruction, mistake, bad faith or fraud, whether it asked itself the wrong question or whether it took into account something which was extraneous, the result is a nullity. If the tribunal has misconstrued the statute giving it jurisdiction and has acted on the misconstruction, it follows that it is not within its jurisdiction: see Ridge v. Baldwin  AC. 40, 71, 80; Armah’s case [1968,] AC. 192, 212, 225, 230, 233, 237-238, 241, 250, 253, 257, 260-61, 263-264; and Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food  AC. 997″
Judges concealed fraud
In January 2022 Millinder had filed 6 case files containing all the evidence and submissions that had been suppressed by the 15 judges involved during the course of public justice.
Referring to CASE-FILE-PART-3, then to DOC-9 of the tabulated case file. Tabs 1 – 17 contains the evidence, submissions and reports proving fraud and criminality in Millinder’s case. This material was filed in the Administrative Court in defence of the section 42 proceeding.
DOC-9, tabs 5 and 6 are the directions Millinder applied to Andrews and Swift for of 15th March 2021. Andrews and Swift evaded the directions to conceal the multiple criminal offences and fraud that Millinder sought to have tried.
Page 146 of the PDF, paragraph 52 of the directions listed the Insolvency Act criminal offences Hannon is proven to have committed in his role as liquidator. Those criminal offences on 22 counts overlap with 2 counts of fraud by abuse of position, 2 counts of section 5 perjury and 2 counts of fraud by failing to disclose information.
Page 147, paragraphs 53 and 54 of the directions application Andrews and Swift suppressed made the fraudulent abuse only too clear:
“Just two-days after Jones unlawfully disposed of the application of 16th November 2017 that he had no jurisdiction to hear by his own admission, Parent Company was wound up off the back of the fraudulent claim for £25k that was in any event extinguished x 30 and was subject to challenge”
“54. Taking on the position in conflict, Hannon then appointed himself as liquidator of Earth Energy Investments LLP so he could “refuse to deal with me”, failing to accept my proof of debt whilst then dissolving both Empowering Wind MFC Ltd and Earth Energy Investments LLP from the Companies Register to defraud me of my assets under the façade of insolvency law that is designed principally to recover assets for creditors of companies in liquidation”
Page 148 of the PDF, paragraph 68 – 72 addressed Hannon’s fraudulent abuse of position, referring to case law and paragraph 73 referred to criminal fraud by failing to disclose information and going behind judgments in insolvency proceedings. Paragraph 73 referred to the petition (tab 5) where further criminality was proven.
Paragraph 65 of Millinder’s March 2021 directions referred specifically to the test for evoking the duty of inquiry where there is miscarriage of justice re-affirmed by the former Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal:
“What in my judgment is required is that the Court be shown something from which it can conclude that had there been a properly conducted judicial process it would have been found, or very likely would have been found, that nothing was in fact due to the Claimant. It is clear that in those circumstances the Court can enquire into the judgment and the judgment debt, even though the debtor himself has previously applied to have the judgment set aside, and even though that application has been refused and that refusal has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal”
Given that the judges involved first defrauded Millinder of his mandatory statutory right to enjoy the scheme of law conferred in rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 which, had it been administered, would have extinguished the Club’s fraudulent claims, it followed that the compromised so-called judges would also go on to defraud him of the duty of inquiry, because any lay person could determine that the Club’s claims are false.
The Club’s proofs of debt are false for the same reason that the claim for unlawful forfeiture cannot be defended. It is for that reason the Court wilfully failed to apply mandatory law, then affronted the law by evading the duty of inquiry whilst then suppressing and preventing Millinder’s applications that sought to have done so from being heard.
Page 150 of the 15th March 2021 directions referred to the public interest in prosecuting the offenders:
“Broadly, the presumption is that the public interest requires prosecution where there has been a contravention of the criminal law. In this case there have been many, and all have been committed by lawyers, judges and an insolvency practitioner who purport to be officers of the court”.
Andrews and Swift concealed and failed to provide those directions, knowing of the serious offences of fraud committed.
On 30th March 2021, during the hearing in the Administrative Court, Andrews verbally accepted that nothing in Millinder’s case that needed to be determined, ever was. Andrews said “don’t you think that these people deserve the right to answer the allegations of fraud” a sentiment that was later repeated by HHJ Prince in Newcastle Crown Court, on 10th December 2021.
In the current proceeding Andrews and Cavanagh sought to rely heavily on the fact that Lord Justice Easthope-Davis, who acted to prevent justice being served on police who altered witness statements in the Hillsborough inquiry, perverted the course of justice and concealed all the evidence of fraud that had been throughout.
CASE-FILE-PART-2: DOC-8 reveals the extent of the evidence and submissions that were before Easthope-Davis in the Court of Appeal, his concealment is self revealing.
Millinder’s first skeleton argument with the appeal is at tab_2, page 750 of the PDF. The skeleton proves criminal fraud by failing to disclose information, and criminal fraudulent abuse of position and multiple counts of false representation.
A repeat performance of the cover up in the Administrative Court was replicated in the Court of Appeal. One must naturally question, where are the instructions for the judges to behave this way coming from?
HHJ Prince in Newcastle Crown Court accepted that the lawyers Millinder accused of fraud are criminals
It is evident during that proceeding in Newcastle Crown Court Millinder was complaining that the Magistrates Court had perverted the course of justice and that his private criminal prosecutions were suppressed and was never determined.
DOC-10, tab_43 is Millinder’s letter of complaint to the CPS about criminality dated 12th August 2021 and at page 391 – 329 of the PDF is the response from the Senior Crown Prosecutor, of which we quote:
“Thank you for your communication of 12 August 2021. I have now had the opportunity to consider the case in full.
I understand that you were convicted, in your absence, for an offence of Harassment on 19 June 2020. An appeal against that conviction has been lodged and is due to be heard before HHJ Prince later this year
The CPS can only deal with cases which are referred to us by bodies defined in statute. We are not able to act on complaints or allegations regarding criminal conduct from individuals.
Our correspondence with you is therefore confined to that which is relevant to the offence currently before the court at Newcastle namely your appeal against conviction outlined above.
Any other correspondence will be filed without response. As you appear to be alleging criminal conduct by a number of individuals and bodies, this should be referred to the police who will decide whether to investigate, and then decide whether it is a matter which should be referred to the CPS”.
The CPS knew that Millinder was pursing the lawyers who alleged he harassed them during the course of a private criminal investigation and prosecution, therefore they knew Millinder had not committed any offence of harassment. Statute affirmed he had not. The ordinary informed lay person could determine that the statutory defence negated the offence.
The CPS advised to refer to police. Undoubtedly the CPS knew that the police were instructed not to investigate.
DOC-D, page 78 of the PDF contains an email from Detective Chief Superintendent Scott Hall of Northumbria Police acknowledging Millinder’s criminal complaint on 13th January 2022 at 10.23AM:
“I would like to acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence (series of emails) surrounding allegations relating to HHJ Prince and others.
I have asked that our Crime Department review the information contained within your correspondence with a view to determining next steps and where required, the commencement of an investigation.
Once this process is complete, you can expect contact from the allocated investigator”
Page 81 of DOC-D, paragraph 7.1 cites the admission 9th September 2020 by the Court that Currer in North Tyneside Magistrates Court was conflicted:
“Please be advised that the magistrates’ courts in Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria will not be able to consider any request to have one of the local District Judges prosecuted. I am sure you can appreciate that there is a need to avoid any perception of bias wherever a decision like this has to be made which means that any such application would need to be pursued in a different court area”
Knowing that his personal associates, the lawyers in Newcastle, had committed offences, first District Judge Paul Currer in North Tyneside Magistrates and then HHJ Prince in Newcastle concealed Millinder’s evidence and failed to determine the private criminal prosecution against them. Prince in Newcastle Crown Court then failed to deal with the wrongdoings of the magistrates.
The senior magistrates court legal advisor confirmed in writing that Currer was conflicted, he was permitted to make a further order in Millinder’s case, acting as judge of his own cause, dismissing his application under Section 142 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 to set aside the nullity prosecution when he had no jurisdiction to have done so. It was that decision that Millinder appealed, which is the decision not to set aside a proven nullity, a prosecution that has no legal effect from the outset.
Millinder had sent all the submissions and evidence of fraud and corruption to Northumbria Police, just one-day after all the information was sent, on 2nd February 2022 at 12.21PM their Crime Department came back with this:
“We have received your correspondence via the Chief Constables office and unfortunately we will not be able to progress an investigation into the claims you have raised.
We are aware of the s42 order under Senior Courts Act 1981, the extensive history of this matter, that you are wanted on warrant and that you are believed to be out of the country. Given all of this we do not intend to reply to the substance of your email, or investigate.
Please note all future emails will be ignored.“
A blatant affront to statute & the rule of law by the politically controlled judicial white-collar criminals
In the nullity, in excess of jurisdiction committal judgment, paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 by the criminal offenders, Andrews and Cavanagh, stated this:
6. An insuperable obstacle is that Empowering Wind MFC and Earth Energy have both been compulsorily wound up. The former was wound up in 2016 on a petition by HMRC; the latter was wound up in 2018 on a petition by Middlesbrough FC founded upon the non-payment of costs awarded in its favour under a consent order signed by Earth Energy’s then solicitors. Mr Millinder was unsuccessful in his attempts to challenge the liquidation of Earth Energy, to which he claimed Empowering Wind MFC
had assigned a cause of action against Middlesbrough FC which, by way of set off or cross-claim, extinguished any debt owed by Earth Energy to Middlesbrough FC.
7. The liquidator of both companies, a Mr Hannon, decided not to pursue any claims either company may have had against Middlesbrough FC. In any event, he was not put in funds to pursue any such claim. The liquidator did not accept that there had been a valid assignment of the cause of action to Earth Energy, and various judges, including the Chancellor in the judgment to which I have referred, have held that there was insufficient evidence to support Mr Millinder’s assertion that there was. Mr Millinder
then tried unsuccessfully to pursue the claims himself, which he could not do, because any cause of action remained vested in one or other of the defunct companies.
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.
The passages highlighted red above are cover ups, affronts to the law and outright malicious falsehoods contrary to the law, affronting the authority of the Supreme Court. Here’s why:
It is the mandatory duty of the Court to apply insolvency set off where there are cross claims originating through mutual dealings between a creditor, or one claiming to prove, and the company:
9-clear days prior to the winding up hearing against EW on 19 September 2016, the former Chief Registrar had in his possession in hard copy the quantified claim against the Club exceeding £9.2 million. (See: REPORT-01-12-2022 – page 1).
On 11th April 2018, Ulick Staunton, counsel for the Club himself admitted in court, as recorded on the official hearing transcript that the assigned investment extinguished the liability to pay the £25,000. (See: FRAUD-FALSE-REP-Staunton-2-counts). The 1 page-skeleton argument links to the evidence, being the 3 transcripts of 5th February 2018, 28th March 2018 and 11th April 2018. At paragraph “A” the evidence cited links to the transcript of the 5th February 2018 hearing:
Mr Staunton: Second page in. Reading that second paragraph, what’s assigned to EEI are the investments, the £200,000.
Nugee J: Yeah
It is proven beyond doubt that on 5th February 2018 it was Staunton and Nugee’s actual state of mind as to knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the investments were assigned to EEI”. 4-days later, on 12th February 2018 his instructing solicitor sought to claim £25,000, presenting a without notice winding up petition, knowing that their claim was extinguished by the claim of £939,160 on 28th March 2018.
On 1st March 2018, Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI”), victim of the Club’s fraudulent non-disclosure of between 9th of January 2017 – 5th February 2018 made an application to set aside the fraudulently obtained consent order of 16 January 2017 which was said to have originated a £25,000 liability. The £25,000 is proceeds of crime, originating from 2 counts of proven fraud by false representation.
On 20th March 2018, the Club and their corrupt lawyers (counsel, Ulick Staunton) made an application to strike out the EEI 1st March 2018 application.
On 21st of March 2018, Nugee J, then a High Court Judge, ordered that the Club’s application be dismissed and listed EEI’s application to set aside the fraudulently obtained consent order in the usual way.
One week later, after knowing that it was the assigned investment of 30 June 2015 which originated the EEI 6 January 2017 statutory demand against the Club which in turn originated their ex-parte 9th January 2017 financial injunction proceeding, Ulick Staunton attended Court and committed fraud by false representation, lying about the assignment.
FRAUD-FALSE-REP-Staunton-2-counts paragraph B attests that in Millinder and EEI’s absence, Staunton committed fraud by false representation, denying all knowledge of the assignment which he admitted was effective and has known of since 9th January 2017:
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
But then on 11th April 2018, Staunton committed fraud by false representation again during the rescission hearing, knowing there was no debt on which the Club’s winding up petition was based, as evidenced at paragraph C:
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.
It is this proven criminal fraud that Vos, Andrews, Swift and Cavanagh (and all the purported judges involved) have worked to conceal throughout the course of public justice.
It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Staunton himself accepted that the assignment is effective and that it extinguished the £25,000. Nobody can dispute it, for law affirms that the assignment is effectual from 30 June 2015 when notice was served on the Club. (See: REPORT-01-12-2022 – pages 249 & 250 of the PDF).
By 11th April 2018, the application to set aside the £25,000 proceeds of crime by the Club had not been listed for a hearing as ordered by Nugee on 21st March 2018. The alleged debt was not only extinguished by near on one million, the claim vested in EEI, but that in addition, the purported debt was subject to challenge and was therefore disputed on genuine and substantial grounds.
It is this incontrovertible evidence of proven dishonesty and criminal fraud, and the admission by Staunton, the Club’s own counsel, as recorded on the official hearing transcripts, three times over on separate occasions that the corrupt judiciary have sought to conceal throughout the course of public justice.
Likewise, on 28th June 2018 before Pelling, when he defrauded Millinder of the right of the duty of inquiry, Pelling had a duty to have applied set off and to have rescinded the EEI winding up petition. They were all conspiring to defraud creditors whilst perverting the course of justice.
Vos was taken to the categoric admission that Staunton not only admitted that the EEI cross claim extinguished the £25,000, but that in addition “R’s don’t bring any claims against A, or Empowering, or Earth Energy”. Indeed, the c£4.1 million proof of debt claim made by the Club which Vos concealed, is a claim.
The claim, vested in both companies, was founded by indefensible unlawful forfeiture of along term registered 26-year lease against the property title of Riverside Stadium, Middlesbrough.
At paragraph 8 of the committal order against Millinder, which is in law a nullity, Andrews lied and affronted the rule of law to imply that the claims vested in both companies (proceeds of crime) was beyond the statute of limitations. Indeed, any judge would know that the statement is entirely false, and that therefore Andrews knew what she was doing was dishonest:
The Limitation Act 1980
15 Time limit for actions to recover land.
(1)No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person.
On 19th August 2015, the Club unlawfully forfeited the long-term leasehold interest in favour of EW. The claim to recover land starts from there and expires on 19th August 2027.
The claims against the corrupt judiciary, the Lord Chancellor and HMCTS arise through fraudulent maladministration of insolvency law (fraudulent abuse of position) a fraud. There is no time limit on fraud, nor perversion of the course of justice.
Moreover, mandatory law of due process, rule 14.25(4) & 14.25(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 affirmed that Hannon was to use “all available means” to recover the claims for both EW and EEI, he did nothing but work for the offenders, sustaining the knowingly fraudulent claims to keep the assets law intended be realised for creditors, beyond their reach.
On 16th July 2019 Hannon dissolved EEI to defraud Millinder, its sole creditor of over £1 million and on 31st March 2020 Hannon dissolved EW to defraud Millinder, requisite majority creditor of the claims that were, by law, to be mandatorily paid to him as part of the assets. A total of over £10 million in criminal property that Millinder has been defrauded of by Hannon who has committed two counts of fraud by abuse of position. A criminal fraud.
In fact, Swift, Andrews and Cavanagh were each taken to the categoric proof of Hannon’s criminal offending, but they concealed the offences to prevent him from being prosecuted, whilst continuing to maliciously target Millinder, the innocent victim of their fraud. It was that offending which Andrews, Swift and the corrupt Law Ministers concealed during 2021 to originate their void restraint order. In our follow up article exposing these criminals in judicial and ministerial office, we shall show the people the evidence of those offences that Andrews and Swift concealed.
On 1st November 2022, after having perverted the course of justice to conceal no less then 60 criminal offences and fraud by the judiciary themselves, Andrews acted knowingly in conflict, to do precisely the same again. That is how Millinder’s committal order came about.
At paragraph 7, Andrews lied, knowing that in fact Hannon was never even appointed as liquidator of EEI. This dishonest concealment (perversion of the course of public justice) is inextricably linked with a further criminal offence Hannon is proven beyond doubt to have committed.
We refer to REPORT-01-12-2022 and at page 90 of the PDF we refer to the offence of section 109 “Notice by Liquidator of his appointment” of the Insolvency Act 1986. We adduced a copy of the London Gazette notice history taken on 15th March 2021 which proves beyond reasonable doubt that:
Hannon has committed the offence, for there is no notice of his appointment, but moreover, that Hannon was never even appointed as liquidator, Mr Dionne was. Hannon was installed only to defraud Millinder, just as the corrupt judiciary did, after first defrauding him of his statutory rights in the EW liquidation.
It is proven beyond doubt that all the judges in Millinder’s case are criminals who have acted contrary to the law to defraud creditors in proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 whilst perverting the course of justice to prevent justice being served on themselves and their conspirators, the Club, Hannon and their corrupt lawyers.
A look at the Law Society
The Law Society Group is made up of two divisions, the Law Society Professional Body and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA“). Its website claims “We are the independent professional body for solicitors in England and Wales. We’re run by and for our members“.
It’s hardly an independent body when they admitted in the same sentence it is run by and for their members now is it?
The same sentence contradiction sums up how all too many lawyers operate, a spin of nonsense and deceit, often far departed from law, reality and evidence, charging exorbitant costs in the process. The only difference between a corrupt lawyer and a corrupt judge is that the latter holds judicial office.
The Law Society & its Solicitor’s Regulation Authority – Public opinion speaks volumes
The SRA purports to regulate the legal profession. In truth and reality it does not, and only acts after a conviction of one of its members. In other words, they only act once they are forced to, and in fact do nothing whatsoever to protect the public from unscrupulous lawyers. On the contrary, over 240 complainants, all members of the public, are essentially saying they cover up dishonesty by lawyers, and they are not wrong.
Of the 240 reviews of the SRA on Trustpilot, 100% are bad:
One star is just to open the review page; I would have offered none”
Utter joke, failed to investigate, ignores documentary evidence as well as the solicitor’s admission we were his client, and it took 6 years of wasted time and effort, a total JOKE of an alleged “regulator”.
Don’t be put off by SRA corruption. Refer any solicitor dishonesty claims to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund…”
Managed to take lying and incompetence to another level. Their staff have not even read the garbage that they put on their own website. If you actually believed their website they would have to dismiss all of their own staff and the arrogant, obnoxious half wit they pay to impartially agree with garbage they produce.“
The Law Society masonic stronghold of corrupt lawyers & judges
The Law Society is one of the most masonic institutions in the world, its members are actively encouraged to join the secretive sect.
Freemasons all took oath to look out for one another, that is a founding principle, meaning that a freemason will get preferential treatment in a proceeding or business transaction over a non-freemason, creating a position of bias, favour over one’s opposition. Tools of the craft are used to communicate an illicit transaction during proceedings, we have witnessed this first-hand in the High Court of Justice and in Crown Court and magistrates proceedings.
In the middle of the 12th century, the military Order of the Knights Templar built the round church by the Thames which became known as the Temple Church. After the abolition of the Order in 1312, lawyers then occupied the Temple site and buildings, they formed themselves into two societies, the Inner Temple and Middle Temple.
The Bar has their own masonic lodges and is in its own right, as with the Law Society, they are masonic strongholds. Gray’s Inn Lodge, (Number: 4938) is a Royal Arch Chapter of freemasons who regularly meet at Freemason’s Hall. The Chancery Bar Lodge (Number: 2456) was established in 1892 and its membership are exclusively judges and barristers of the Chancery High Court of Justice in London, regularly meeting at Lincoln’s Inn Hall.
Freemasonry originated the legal profession in the UK and today its practices run throughout its core. The masonic oath of members within the legal sector takes precedence over law, justice, impartiality and the constitutional oaths sworn by judicial and ministerial office holders.
The Law Society claims to “drive excellence in the profession“, to “safeguard the rule of law“, to “work to make sure no-one is above the law” and to “protect everyone’s right to have access to justice“. In fact, they are proven to do precisely the opposite.
Pathological dishonesty prevails throughout the UK’s legal sector, including the judiciary, regulatory authorities and governance. They appear to get some perverse pleasure out of deceiving their victims and the public with nonsense, lies and cover ups. Michael Cross and his Law Society Gazette propaganda outlet takes it to a whole new level, and moreover, they all collude to ensure corrupt lawyers, judges and public officials are made “above the law”.
We sent Michael Cross our report on Millinder’s case long prior to him publishing the defamatory, factually inaccurate garbage regurgitated by Geraldine Andrews, the allegedly corrupt white-collar criminal judge who perverted the course of justice between November 2020 – 7 July 2021 and came back to do so again on 1st November 2022.
Let’s start with “driving excellence in the profession”
What the British governance of lawyers and judges were covering up was proven criminality by fellow lawyers and judges in Millinder’s case. Their strategy was to publish malicious falsehoods, branding Millinder a “vexatious litigant” to detract away from the truth. Cover ups is what they do best, and to be fair, not that much else.
The recent 12-year sentence of fraudster lawyer, Stephen David Jones came not as a result of successful public justice administration, quite on the contrary. The CPS, controlled by the two Law Ministers acted to cover it up.
The Jones case was as clear cut as it gets. DLC sent $16 million to Jirehouse Trustees, one of 3 SRA regulated law firms controlled by Jones, to complete the transaction acquiring Taymouth Castle. Acquisition of the Castle was to complete in December 2018. Jones lied to DLC, falsely claiming that there was money laundering issues and that if the firm advanced a further $9.3m, he could complete the purchase within seven days and pay back the surplus two days later.
All the money went missing, and the only person with custody of it, was Jones. It did not take an “Inspector Morse” to work that one out.
In 2019, Jones was sentenced for contempt of court for breach of undertakings to return the completion funds to DLC. Within 48 hours of that hearing Jones admitted that the funds could not be returned.
The victims of this massive fraud by abuse of position by Jones, the U.S based firm, Discovery Land Company (“DLC“), had to resort to their own private criminal prosecution, expending over £4 million to have Jones prosecuted.
In Southwark Crown Court, passing sentence, the Judge commented that “it is such an obviously prosecutable case that was crying out for prosecution”.
Were it not for the tenacity of the victims, Jones, like so many corrupt lawyers, would have evaded justice. Surely the case opens the public eye to wilful failings in the sector caused by unscrupulous lawyers in public office?
The Law Society has a 2013 “memorandum of understanding” with the Association of Chief Police Officers, essentially creating policy whereby all initial complaints, criminal or otherwise, against lawyers are first referred by police to the Law Society, who looks after its members. The regulators wilfully fail to regulate.
In the Millinder case, it was about insolvency law. Both Millinder’s sole purpose development companies were wound up off the back of purported debts that never existed in truth and reality. Both companies in any event had claims that extinguished the fraudulent claims, yet the judges involved, knowing of the claims, defrauded Millinder of the mandatory statutory right of set off.
Millinder was defrauded by Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, installed as liquidator by the establishment, who is likewise alleged to have committed 2 counts of fraud by abuse of position, just like Jones did. The Law Ministers, and the judges, covered it up, to prevent Hannon, a corrupt public official from prosecution.
The fictitious claims were made by former the Senior Partner of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, Robin Bloom, who was acting as general legal counsel for the Club, a close personal associate of the corrupt former Solicitor General and Royal Arch freemason, then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland KC MP.
On 9th January 2017 even their own counsel, Ulick Staunton is evidenced stating that “for the purpose of the energy supply agreement, force majeure has effect“, but failing whatsoever, in breach of their duty of full and frank disclosure, to have disclosed that the energy supply agreement is conditional upon Millinder’s “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” which the Club refused, whilst in tandem failing to disclose that the Club refused the same and only connection, rendering the project useless.
24-days later, Womble Bond Dickinson, Staunton’s instructing lawyer, claimed over £4 million for energy supply, increased from £181,269.89 of the blackmail, used to unlawfully forfeit the wind turbine lease, which is the claim that the Club sought to prove in the EW petition.
Twice over, in two corporate insolvencies, the corrupt judiciary fraudulently maladministered mandatory law of due process to assist the Tory owned Club in defrauding Millinder, knowing that both claims against the Club, vested in both companies, were indefensible. It was premeditated, dishonest and deliberate fraud.
Millinder was defrauded of his statutory right to have had the Court adjudicate on the fraudulent proofs of debt, because Registrar Jones, a personal associate of Hannon’s perverted the course of justice and committed fraud by false representation, misrepresenting the application of rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, then stating “I have already decided the application cannot rely on the rule“.
It was all about sustaining fraudulent claims, that law intended be set off entirely prior to making of the insolvency order, and then defrauding Millinder of his statutory right to have the Court adjudicate on the validity of the claims. Doing so would have revealed that in fact, the claims are all false, for the same reason that the claims vesting in EW and EEI, are indefensible.
15 corrupt members of the judiciary worked in collusion with the corrupt Law Ministers and the Government Legal Department, over a protracted period of time to ensure that the preliminary issue, which “goes to the heart of Millinder’s case” (indefensible unlawful forfeiture of the lease and law that commits the assignment as being effective from the date it was served) was concealed, even though it was proven from the outset.
Is defaming an innocent victim of fraud whilst lending credence to judicial corruption and multiple criminal offences committed by corrupt lawyers “driving excellence in the procession”?
Fake news is dangerous for democracy, and the Law Society and Michael Cross is the outlet.
Michael Cross & the Law Society’s version of “Safeguarding the rule of law”
Our report on the case, pages 25 & 26 contain an active table of contents. The ordinary informed lay observer could determine the number of serious offences committed against Millinder, in particular offences under the Fraud Act 2006, let alone the criminal offences committed by Hannon. This report was put before the judiciary, they had consistently concealed the fraud and criminality, along with the Attorney General’s Office and the Government Legal Department.
It is not the laws, nor Millinder, but the administration that is at fault.
The rule of law
The rule of law is the framework that underpins open, fair and peaceful societies, where citizens and businesses can prosper. It is essentially about ensuring that:
- public authority is bound by and accountable before pre-existing, clear, and known laws
- citizens are treated equally before the law
- human rights are protected
- citizens can access efficient and predictable dispute resolution mechanisms
- law and order are prevalent
It is proven in fact, in particular in respect of the Millinder case, that none of the above happens in the UK, and Michael Cross and the Law Society Gazette sought to cover that up to assist the corrupt, lawless judiciary of white-collar criminals in carrying their fraudulent narrative over to the public. The conduit for fraud and corruption by the legal sector, the media cover up agents.
Millinder’s complaint of serious fraud and corruption was concealed and suppressed by the corrupt establishment
In March 2022, Millinder applied for directions in furtherance of the overriding objective to deal with the fraud that Vos and successive judges concealed. It was alleged that Kerr lied and failed to provide the directions to conceal the fraud.
From Millinder’s complaint, it is evident that on 10 May 2022 at 12:47PM, Millinder emailed the proof of fraud to Mandy Torrens, clerk to purported top criminal judge, Mr Justice Kerr, who had made an order in the case brought against Millinder by the Law Ministers.
In response to that, the Court, which is supposed to prosecute all fraud and criminality in the public interest, responded on 11th May 2022 at 09.50AM:
“It has been decided that the nature of the emails recently received from you constitutes good reason to terminate this correspondence, as they are considered to be inappropriate and an abuse of the court’s process. This email is therefore formal notification that all further emails from firstname.lastname@example.org will not be responded to with immediate effect.
If you disagree with the decision, you may write to Geraint Evans at this address stating the reasons for your disagreement, and requesting a review. A review response will be sent within twenty days of receipt of your request“
At the top of page 1 is Millinder’s email in response of 11th May 2022 at 11.53AM disagreeing with the decision stating the reasons:
“There is an email entitled “CO/915/2022 – ADMINISTRATIVE COURT – 04/05/2022 – FORMAL COMPLAINT OF SERIOUS CORRUPTION AND LAWLESSNESS” dated 4th May 2022 at 07.10AM setting out my complaint of fraud and corruption. You allege there is abuse. There is no abuse whatsoever. I see this as nothing more than an excuse to conceal the corruption and lawlessness I have had to endure for over six-years. I request that you direct me to any correspondence that you suggest is abusive in my complaint. There is none whatsoever.
My right of action has been assigned to a Scottish company. They will be taking action in relation to this malfeasance. It is clear that you cannot handle the complaint, because it is the truth, so you conjure up this nonsense as yet another excuse to suppress and evade dealing in a constitutionally proper way. I request a review and a properly balanced and weighted decision for refusing to deal with my complaint of maladministration when the maladministration is proven“
Despite the promise of the review, and that the complaint would be investigated by “Senior Management”, the review was never forthcoming and the complaint was concealed.
The same fraud that Millinder had distinctly pleaded and proven before Vos, was concealed by the corrupt judiciary ever since. The evidence is particularly revealing, it is inextricably linked with the fraudulent abuse in wilful failure to apply the mandatory law in set off, as it is the duty of inquiry in the insolvency court.
Millinder’s case was proven from the outset, which is why the corrupt judiciary failed to apply the mandatory law in set off. Fraud upon fraud, founded by the Club’s fraud and then judicial fraud.
We, the British people have the inalienable right to be governed justly by Parliament and the judiciary. Under this vile kleptocracy of human rights abusing offenders, that is not happening, and it has not been for a long time.
We have asked the Law Society, Dominic Raab, the Lord Chancellor who wants to tear up the Human Rights Act knowing of all this corruption going on, the Government Legal Department and the purported judges involved to comment on this article. We shall publish any such comments in the follow up.
Help us to help you, like, comment and share this article far and wide. There’s a cure for corruption and that is, transparency.