Paul Millinder (“Millinder“) a renewable energy developer, was defrauded and oppressively denied remedy by the English establishment of judges and Tory ministers who embarked upon a protracted malicious campaign to discredit and defame him to cover up serious wrongdoing by Middlesbrough FC and their lawyers, led by Tory Teesside politician Steve Gibson O.B.E.
Download our report in PDF for an enhanced viewing experience.
Behind the plethora of malicious falsehoods contained in fabricated judgments designed to deceive the public is the truth. People naturally consider the decisions of the courts are lawful and correct. Justice is supposed to be seen to be done, in this case, after investigation we reveal justice being seen not to be done. The UK’s legal system is corrupt and lacks independence. Political interference is a major issue.
The proceedings were engineered to prevent Millinder, requisite majority creditor of two insolvent companies, from suing the wrongdoers, who caused the insolvencies in the first instance. An aggravated criminal conspiracy to defraud. It is alleged that the judges involved, the Attorney General, and Solicitor General perverted the course of justice.
In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.
It is the finding of Intelligence UK International that 15 judges in this case, and the Law Ministers they conspired with are effectually fraudsters, sponsored by the taxpayer to defraud and terrorise innocent parties who seek justice, in the name of it. The perpetrators are propped up by taxpayer’s funds, leeching off the public purse to the tune of around £190,000 and many occupy office after breaching their oaths. In this case, defrauding private business people who have to work for their hard earned money.
Millinder was branded a “vexatious litigant” for seeking to exercise rights granted by law, and hoodwinked of the statutory law of insolvency set off. Law, had it been administered, determined that no money was ever owed to the Club, and over £10 million is owed to Millinder through his companies.
In 2020, the Supreme Court, the Highest Court of the land comprehensively determined the point of law at the heart of Millinder’s case:
Paragraph 27. “The special rules as to set-off in the context of insolvency (usually labelled “insolvency set-off”) form a small but important part of the wider statutory insolvency code, which is directed to ensuring that the assets of an insolvent person (individual or company) are first collected in and then distributed mainly pari passu among those with relevant claims of the same priority”
Paragraph 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  AC 243. But the separate claims may survive for other purposes: see Wight v Eckhardt Marine GmbH  UKPC 37;  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)“
We release our 28-page 11/11/2022 report. The truth was always there, it was just fraudulently concealed by 15 judges, the Attorney General, Solicitor General and Government Legal Department delinquent abuses of the public trust, along with no less than 60 criminal offences committed by fellow Tory owned corporations and their lawyers. Law, fairness, integrity and justice, never fitted in their equation.
At page 15 of the report, we evidence how the judges have committed fraud. Lord Justice Arnold, after confirming that he read the terms of the lease, with a £50k rent per annum, falsely claimed this at paragraph 3 of his 9 January 2017 judgment: “Empowering Wind was liable to pay rent of £550,000 per annum” to conceal the fact that the Club had fraudulently sought to claim £541,308.89 against EW.
On 5 February 2018, in his judgment, Mr Justice Nugee found that neither rent or energy supply was owed to the Club. The same finding was cited in Millinder’s application notice which was before Vos from 28 September 2018, the application to try fraud and to exercise the duty of inquiry, which Vos failed to do.
On 8 February 2019, the now Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, head of civil justice for England & Wales committed fraud by false representation. At paragraph 105 of his judgment, knowing it was tried and found by the same Court that no rent or energy supply was owed, and that it was the £4,111,874.75 claim by the Club for rent and energy supply that the application before him sought to address, Vos stated this:
On 25th June 2015, Middlesbrough invoiced Empowering Wind MFC for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89“
£181,269.89 of the claim was an invoice for energy supply, whereas the rent was just £75,000 when the first rental installment (£15,000) was ordinarily due on 17 September 2015.
Registrar Clive High Jones – Fraudulently abused his position to defraud Millinder and EW creditors
By November 2017, Millinder had enough, and made an application to Court to remove a c£4.1 million fraud by false representation made by the Club and their lawyers. The claim was the third proof of debt, which originated from their £256,269.89 blackmail, when law intended that the Club’s claims be set off entirely, prior to making the winding up order against EW.
Paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court Bresco judgment determined that the duty to apply set off also applies to “future debts”. The £4.1 million fraud, which anyone could determine is false, is a future debt. It is apparent that there was a protracted intent by the Court to fail to apply the scheme of law in rule 14.25 of the IR 2016, for doing so would result in the net balance of the claim being paid to Millinder as a dividend, as law intended.
Hannon, the Official Receiver acting as liquidator made the decision to retain the proof of debt and to have failed in his statutory duty to have set off the claim entirely, knowing that it is in any event false.
On 15 November 2017 Millinder made his originating application which was expressly “to be heard by a High Court Judge“, it sought to deal with criminal fraud by failing to disclose information during an ex-parte (without notice injunction by the Club), fraudulent abuse of position by the liquidator of EW, and fraud by false representation on 4 counts.
At paragraph 27 – 31 of his 26 March 2018 judgment Jones falsely represented that rule 14.11 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016 (“IR 2016”) applies only to decisions to accept or reject proofs of debt for dividend. Jones knew, or ought to have known that the rule becomes effective when a proof of debt has been admitted by the office holder, and the office holder refuses to interfere in the matter. The operative part of the law determines precisely that:
Exclusion of proof by the court : 14.11.—(1) The court may exclude a proof or reduce the amount claimed — (a) on the office-holder’s application, where the office-holder thinks that the proof has been improperly admitted, or ought to be reduced; or (b) on the application of a creditor, a member, a contributory or a bankrupt, if the office-holder declines to interfere in the matter.
Jones had before him the sealed letter of claim dated 18 August 2017, which was served on Hannon by Millinder’s counsel, asking the office holder to make a decision in relation to the proofs of debt he admitted. We reiterate, the Supreme Court affirmed that the duty to apply set off is ongoing, and applies to “future debts”. Law makes the provision to amend down, or exclude.
Paragraph 55 – 63 is where Edmund Robb of Prospect Law, counsel for Millinder set out the net quantified claim against EW in the sum of £9,231,096, being the loss directly incurred as a result of the Club’s actions, excluding consequential damages, and ongoing damages to Millinder’s business and personal reputation.
Paragraph 65 – 66 refers to rule 4.25 of the IR 2016, the mandatory scheme of law Millinder was defrauded of, the law of insolvency set off, asking Hannon to set off the Club’s fraudulent claim and paragraph 70 – 73 asks Hannon to make a decision.
It was Hannon’s decision to decline to interfere in the matter which provided a duty of inquiry for the Court to investigate the circumstances and to amend down, or exclude the proof of debt.
Knowing that the preliminary consideration; the fact that the claims by the Club are entirely fraudulent, (for the same reason that the EW and EEI claims are indefensible because the Club blackmailed EW then unlawfully forfeited the lease), Jones committed fraud by false representation and denied Millinder the right to rely on the law that confers that duty:
At paragraph 38 of his 26 March 2018 judgment:
“I have already decided that the Application cannot rely upon Rule 14.11“
In the 2021 High Court decision in Paragon Offshore Plc, Re |  EWHC 2275 (Ch), at p 33 of the judgment, senior judiciary determined jurisdiction under rule 14.11 and when jurisdiction is engaged:
“Rule 14.11 provides the court with the jurisdiction to exclude a proof or to reduce the amount claimed therein where the court is satisfied it has been improperly admitted by an office holder”
“So, in order for rule 14.11 to be engaged, there must be a proof which has been submitted and upon which a determination has been made”
Tory Law Ministers, past and present who are personally acquainted with the Club’s Chairman decided between them that law and justice does not apply to Millinder, and he is not entitled to it. Millinder was defrauded of his democratic right as a creditor, once again preventing from the right to the Court’s duty of inquiry, as was required by statute.
The outcome of any such inquiry, which any ordinary informed lay observer can conclude, is that both EW and EEI have indefensible quantified claims against the Club and that Millinder was defrauded of his rights and his assets, and that there was never any debt owed to the Club “in truth and reality”. The judges wilfully abused their positions to pervert the course of justice and to defraud Millinder, requisite majority creditor of assets he was to have been paid as dividends.
Law intended the Court to investigate the circumstances, and to have amended down the Club’s claim in the sum of £4,111,874.75 which originated from the claim their sought to prove in the EW petition, which is the claim in the sum of £256,269.89 that mandatory law intended be set off entirely against the quantified £9.2 million claim against the Club’s fictitious c£256k claim, the demand used to unlawfully forfeit the lease. (See: UKJ report: page 156 and detailing the purported claim by the Club: UKJ report: page 38, section 6.2 – end of page 44).
At paragraph 42 of his 26 March 2018 judgment, Jones stated this, which we find to be a blatant affront to statutory law of insolvency set off. Law (rule 14.25(4) and 14.25(5), intended that the EW and EEI claims, once set off had been accounted for, must be paid to the liquidator as part of the assets” and distributed to creditors as a dividend:
“Ignoring the existence of the Company’s possible claim in damages for the moment, this means in pragmatic terms that there is no point in time and costs being spent determining the Second Respondent’s proof of debt. Nothing adverse will result from this proof. There is no need for anyone to investigate the proof and Mr Millinder’s contention that the court must do so because it is fraudulent is misconceived. There will be no distribution. The Company will be dissolved without the Second Respondent receiving a payment in any event”
Jones knew of the law in set off, as he knew that the proof of debt was fraudulent, he was working for the Club and Hannon in defrauding creditors of whom he owes a fiduciary duty, also knowing that rule 14.11 was engaged, and that the Club’s claim was fictitious.
From the official 21 December 2017 hearing transcript, Jones was further recorded stating this:
Maybe in other proceedings — who knows — honesty and dishonesty may come into it, but for my purposes it’s not going to matter because I can’t judge.
When fraud is in issue, in particular fraud by failing to disclose information during ex-parte financial injunction proceedings by the Club and their lawyers, and fraud by false representation, and fraud by abuse of position by liquidator, dishonesty matters, but at least he got one part right “I can’t judge“, none of them can, because they were working for the offenders.
Jones however cannot judge, because he is a Registrar / Master, who was precluded in law from presiding over the case which sought to deal with criminal matters. (See: 11/11/2022 report, page 17, paragraphs S, and U. Law, Practice Direction 2B of the Civil Procedure Rules: “Allocation of cases to levels of judiciary”, section 2, 3.1(a) & 3.1(b) precluded Jones from making any order in the case.
“…unsustainable matters were raised by Mr Millinder, including the observation that there may well be a criminal misconduct route that could be brought. Again, I have found absolutely no basis for that”
Jones had absolutely no basis in law to look, he admitted himself “I can’t judge”, but law in any event precluded him from making any order. The orders of 21 December 2017, 26 March 2018 and 5 October 2018 are nullities, founded by Jones, who was knowingly acting in excess of jurisdiction when law precluded him from presiding over the case.
Jones is recorded on the transcript of 21 December 2017 as stating this:
THE REGISTRAR: “I’m therefore going to send my report to Companies House. The company will be dissolved within,” I can’t remember but let’s say three months —
MR HANNON: Three months.
THE REGISTRAR: There we are, three months. And then the company is dissolved and it just doesn’t exist.
THE REGISTRAR: It’s as though it never existed and therefore the proofs of debt which have been sent in fallaciously or otherwise apply to something which doesn’t even exist, so there
On 31 March 2020, Hannon, the corrupt public official installed by the Court to defraud EW and then EEI creditors did precisely that. He dissolved EW to defraud its creditors of over £9.2 million when law, rule 14.25 of the IR 2016 intended that he was to use all available means to ensure that the claims owed to both companies were realised as dividends for creditors. Hannon is personally liable for his fraudulent abuse, and so are all the delinquent judges involved, criminally and financially.
The Lord Chancellor, and all the judges and public officials involved must be held to account, criminally and financially.
30 proven criminal offences committed by the Official Receiver of London – A corrupt public official
Our UKJ report, page 63, paragraph 11.a – 11.f of page 74 sets out the 30 criminal offences Hannon is proven to have committed which were concealed by each and all of the corrupt judiciary involved.
The Attorney General, Solicitor General, ministers with a responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service, Serious Fraud Office and Government Legal Department, along with its office holder, Susanna McGibbon, the Treasury Solicitor are proven to have perverted the course of justice, concealing serious fraud against creditors, then deploying restraint orders to conceal the criminal property creditors have been defrauded of.
Page 64, paragraph 11.d refers to the criminal offence of Section 109(2) of the IA 1986, a criminal offence which is complete when a liquidator fails to publish notice of his
appointment, which is one of the 22 criminal offences in Schedule 10 of the IA 1986 which Hannon is proven to have committed. Directly underneath we adduced a screen shot of the London Gazette official notice history for EEI, showing that Hannon was never even appointed as liquidator, Mr Dionne was. Hannon appointed himself, only to defraud its creditors (Millinder) of over £1 million, after defrauding the EW creditors.
Page 65, paragraph 11.f – 11.i adduces evidence from the 11 April 2018 rescission of the 28 March 2018 EEI winding up proceeding founded by Staunton’s fraud by false representation and fraud by the Court, wilfully depriving Millinder of the right to enjoy rule 14.25 of the IR 2016. It is evident that Staunton admitted what he has known since 9 January 2017:
“So there’s a cross claim which extinguishes the liability to pay £25,000″
Briggs, the corrupt Chief Insolvency Registrar, denied Millinder due remedy in rescinding the winding up order against EEI, knowing there was never any debt owed to the Club, yet, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, Briggs had a duty to have set off the sum entirely, he wilfully failed to do so, because they have been reverse engineering insolvency law, designed to recover assets for creditors, so that they could defraud creditors of those assets.
Misrepresentation and deprivation of Millinder’s right to mandatory statutory law of due process was their method.
FRAUD-FALSE-REP-Staunton-2-counts, is Millinder’s 1-page submission, the colour coded submission linking to the 3 official hearing transcripts proving 2 counts of criminal fraud by false representation by Staunton to the criminal standard. This proven fraud originating the 28 March 2018 order has been concealed throughout the proceedings, both civil and the private criminal prosecution brought by Millinder, just as everything else has, to prevent justice being served on the offenders.
The Attorney General and Solicitor General have been coercing the judiciary to provide impunity to fellow Tory criminals.
Lady Justice Andrews, Mr Justice Swift, Mr Justice Cavanagh and Lord Justice Easthope-Davis misrepresented the long established law
It has long been the law that there is no res judicata in insolvency proceedings where it be shown that there is not a debt due in truth and reality. Millinder relied on the leading Court of Appeal judgment in Dawodo  by the former Master of the Rolls, Terrance Etherton, who conducted analysis in the judgment of many of the long established 18th century authorities which all say the same thing.
In Dawodo, the Court of Appeal identified the test for evoking the duty of inquiry, the test for miscarriage of justice, which Millinder had proven.
Millinder is evidenced to have been consistently deprived not only of the mandatory statutory duty of the Court to have set off the Club’s claims against both EW and EEI, but then of the right to enjoy a duty of inquiry when it was proven that no money was ever owed to the Club, and that millions was owed to Millinder’s companies. The pattern of deceit, concealment and fraud emerges.
Referring to report 11/11/2022, page 19, paragraph W2, we cited the test established by the Court of Appeal, relied on by Millinder:
“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“
Knowing that Millinder has consistently been deprived of the right granted by law to inquire into the validity of the Club’s claims, at paragraph 22 of the void, in excess of jurisdiction restraint order deployed by corrupt public officials to conceal fraud, Swift and Andrews affronted the law.
Paul Millinder was defrauded of the right to try what had never been tried and no duty of inquiry exercised
“I suspect these submissions were little different to those made on previous occasions to Judge Pelling and to the Chancellor. Mr Millinder continues to contend now, as he did in those earlier hearings, that the issue in the underlying proceedings – whether the proofs of debt made by MFC against Empowering Wind were legitimate – remains unresolved and still needs to be resolved. At the hearing of this application Mr Millinder placed particular reliance on the judgment in Re Fraser, ex parte Central Bank of London (1892) 2 QB633 in support of the proposition that in bankruptcy proceedings it could not be any form of abuse of process to apply to set aside an order previously made if that order had been made the basis of a false liability. On this basis Mr Millinder repeated the contention made to Judge Pelling and the Chancellor that he can properly continue to make applications to set aside any order made against him or his companies to date, on as many occasions as he chooses (presumably for as long as it takes for him to obtain the result he wants)”
It is proven however that the duty of inquiry was never exercised once when Millinder asked for it to be done, even when there was twice a statutory duty for it to be done, it never was, because the fact that the Club’s claims are false is inextricably linked with the fact that the 25 June 2015 claim by the Club is a blackmail, deployed to unlawfully forfeit the lease, proving both EW and EEI’s claim against the Club beyond doubt.
On 6 November 2020, Fancourt J in the High Court affirmed that “the substantive issues have never been tried”
It was the application before Pelling and then before Vos which asked them to exercise the duty of inquiry. By then, the Court had before it, categoric proof, admitted by the Club’s own barrister that “R’s don’t bring any claim against A, or Empowering, or Earth Energy” and that “there’s a cross claim which extinguishes the liability to pay £25,000” in respect of EEI. The corrupt judiciary wilfully concealed the fraud and the admission, to prevent justice being served on the offenders.
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.
In 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed that the “points taken at the right time” was in fact prior to making the insolvency winding up orders against EW and EEI. That never happened, because of their corruption, and thereafter, they prevented the issues that needed to be determined, from ever being. Hence, there was never a real determination of anything at all, nothing that ever needed to be tried, ever was.
Paragraph 30 of the Supreme Court’s judgment 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”
On 28 October 2020, Fancourt had before him an application for a 21-hour trial of further fraud during ex-parte injunction proceedings by the Club. Fancourt, knowing that everything that needed to be tried never was, and sitting in the Insolvency Court where there is no res judicata, on 6 November 2020, also observed this:
Page 17(H) of the 6/11/2020 transcript:
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.
Page 18(A) & (B):
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.
Knowing that nothing that needed to be tried ever was, when law determined when it was to be, Fancourt concealed all Millinder’s evidence of fraud, suppressed the application for trial and certified the proven case as “totally without merit” meaning “no more or less than bound to fail”, to originate his General Restraint Order.
In Ansiminic , the House of Lords, now the Supreme Court affirmed that:
Paragraph 170 of the House of Lords judgment:
“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: itis quite another thing to say that there is nothing to be questioned”
“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″
In 2020 the Supreme Court affirmed that the duty to apply insolvency set off is mandatory
A recap: Rule 14.25 of the IR 2016 provides the legal framework on which claims arising through mutual dealings between a creditor, or one claiming to prove, and an alleged insolvent company on which law is to be administered. Page 61 of our report sets out the Supreme Court’s decision and the statutory framework.
It is mandatory in law (rule 14.25(1) & 14.25(2) that set off of claims where there are mutual dealings be accounted for prior to making the insolvency order.
On 9 September 2016, Registrar Baister of the High Court had before him the quantified EW claim against the Club from EW lawyers.
On 19 September 2016, the Club’s counsel appeared in the EW winding up proceeding that had been adjourned so that Millinder could complete a C.V.A with its creditors, which he did.
The Club was seeking to claim the sum of their blackmail (£256,269.89), a mutual dealing which in fact originated the multi-million pound claims vested in EW and EEI against the Club. Baister, a close personal associate of Staunton, deliberately failed to apply mandatory set off to assist the Club in using fraudulently manipulated insolvency proceedings to defraud Millinder and his fellow creditors, and to prevent justice being served on the Club for the fraud they have committed.
At paragraph 30 of 2020 the Supreme Court decision:
“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 corrupt English judiciary prevented Millinder from his right to enjoyment of the entire scheme of law in rule 14.25 of the IR 2016. Serious fraud and acts of corruption were convened in conspiracy, over a protracted period of time, to defraud Millinder, requisite majority creditor, of over £10 million.
Rule 14.25(3) affirms that only after set off can a creditor (or one claiming to prove) go on to prove in the winding up petition. Law intended therefore that the Club’s blackmail be set off entirely, because the Club never had any claim to prove against EW and EW was not insolvent. On 19 September 2016, Baister og the Insolvency & Companies Court wound up EW after failing to apply the mandatory law of due process.
Rule 14.25(4) determines that ” If there is a balance owed to the company then that must be paid to the liquidator as part of the assets” . Law intended that after set off (the Club’s claim was in any event non-existent / a fraud), the claim owed to the company by the Club was to be paid to the liquidator and distributed as a dividend to Millinder and the remaining body of creditors.
Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, a corrupt public official was deployed by Baister to act as liquidator of EW, fraudulently breaching his fiduciary duty and later committing no less than 30 criminal offences in the course of his duty, was to use “all available means, including ADR and arbitration” to realise the company’s claims against the Club has law intended. Hannon and the Court acted to prevent that from happening.
EEI made insolvent for the Club’s £25k debt that never existed that was extinguished by over £900,000 on 28 March 2018
On 28 March 2018, repeating the process in “reverse engineering” the mandatory law in rule 14.25 of the IR 2016 to defraud Millinder of his investment in EW over 5-years, the Court deliberately evaded the law on set off, having before it the EEI quantified and indefensible cross claim in the sum exceeding £900,000, (the assigned investment plus interest from the date of the assignment).
EEI was wound up off the back of fraud, but moreover, criminal fraud by false representation, which has been concealed by 15 judges whom Millinder alleges to have perverted the course of justice.
This case, in all its simplicity, shows how out of control, corrupt and lawless the British establishment has become. The courts have been weaponised, and many of the judges are in fact fraudsters.
It is not the laws, nor Mr Millinder who is at fault, not at all. It’s the corrupt administration, who abuse their powers, and the trust placed in them by the public as officers under the Crown, acting illegally, contrary to law, defrauding and asset stripping to feed fellow corrupt politicians, lawyers or insolvency practitioners.
Civil restraint orders and oppressively branding Millinder a “vexatious litigant” for challenging their lawless fraudulent narrative
After depriving Millinder of his right of equality before the law as a creditor of EW and EEI, and ultimately of his assets through their fraudulent abuse in conspiracy, the delinquent judges and public officials involved, the two Law Ministers, the Attorney General and Solicitor General acted to pervert the course of justice, deploying a series of void, in excess of jurisdiction certifications of Millinder’s proven case as “totally without merit”.
All that was founded by willingness of the court to assist the Club by sustaining fraudulent liabilities against EW and EEI, when law intended that the Club’s fraudulent claims be set off entirely against the EW and EEI claims, which were then to be paid to Millinder and his fellow creditors.
The perpetrators provided themselves false jurisdiction, contrary to law, to label Millinder a “vexatious litigant” so they could permanently conceal the Court’s own fraud, preventing justice from ever being served on the corrupt judiciary and the Club for a heinous conspiracy to defraud.
Most recently, the same 15 fraudster judges who have defrauded Millinder, came in to sentence him to 15 months in prison for being in contempt of a nullity, a void order made by the same perpetrators to conceal their own fraud and acts of corruption. (See: Report page 55, the active table of contents).
Every other company creditor in the UK would be entitled to enjoy the mandatory statutory law of due process if a company of which they were a creditor was wound up. Millinder was targeted, and was deprived of his rights, twice over, in two separate company insolvency proceedings. It can be nothing other than deliberate.
In the public interest, Intelligence UK International releases our 28-page report on the recent developments in the case, where Lady Justice Andrews and Mr Justice Cavanagh acting in conspiracy, abused their powers, acting knowingly in conflict, to conceal serious offences committing by corrupt public officials, knowing that nothing that ever needed to be tried, ever was, and that Mr Millinder’s legal issue all came about through the Court’s own fraudulent failure to apply mandatory law.
The report adduces evidence and submissions that were before Andrews and Swift between November 2020 – July 2021, and then again in the current proceedings. It is proven conclusively from the evidence referred to that these judges have suppressed Millinder’s evidence, and have affronted the law itself, to assist the offenders, whilst concealing the criminal property Millinder has been defrauded of.
Millinder is making an application now to purge contempt and to set aside orders founded by the Court’s own fraud. The press and public are invited to attend.
We have asked the Court, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Government Legal Department and others involved for their comments on this report. We shall publish any such comments in our follow up report on this case.
Lady Justice Andrews & 15 Judge Criminal Conspiracy – The concealment – Report dated 11 November 2022REPORT_11_11_2022__CORE_SUMMARY
Appeal for help – Please support us in fighting corruption
Please support us. We rely on donations to assist those who need our support but cannot afford to pay. Payments are taken securely by Paypal payment processing:
Help us to help you, like, comment and spread this article far and wide. There’s a cure for corruption and that is, transparency. The people deserve to know the truth.