UK corruption

Simon Just of “Spin vs Truth” defaming the truth seekers

Simon Just - Online troll - Spin vs Truth

Simon Just, who is openly exposed as having been twice arrested for stalking allegations and for threatening the award winning journalist David Hencke ,has the audacity to purport himself to be seeker of truth with his blogging site “Troll Exposure.wordpress.com” “Spin vs Truth”. It is our finding, that he is the troll.

Simon Just, of 4 Castle Green Lane, Kendal, Cumbria, LA9 6AS (pictured right with his wife), has some long standing history as an online troll who harasses and targets those who expose the truth.

On Friday 4th March 2022 it was brought to our attention that Simon Just, (Mr Unjust) as we have found, has taken it upon himself to defame Intelligence UK International with his factually inaccurate, libelous article entitled “Lack of Intelligence UK Dot Com” where he sought to attack our wonderful and talented fighter for truth and justice, Sian Gissing-McMeel for exposing the sham, corrupt secretive family court system responsible for ruining many thousands of innocent families up and down the UK.

Simon Just, who is described in one unrelated site as being “a self-confessed mentally ill middle-aged man” , embarked upon various campaigns to target victims of sexual abuse. He has now taken it upon himself to turn his attention to us, Intelligence UK International, for exposing corruption.

We wrote to Simon Just asking him why he committed the criminal offence by flagrantly violating our copyrighted material with intent to oppressively defame our firm with his factually inaccurate guttural. We warned Just that we would commence a private criminal prosecution against him without further notice. He responded stating this:

“No. Copyright is not breached for fair use and criticism reasons. No defamation has taken place as the court made it clear that Millender refused to accept court decisions”. 

We went on to warn Simon Just that:

“Contrary to section 107 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Act) you have deliberately violated our copyrighted material by taking screenshots of our protected content and displaying this within your website.   You read our terms and conditions, you took screen shots of various parts of our website knowing that doing so is a breach of copyright law“.

“A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—
(a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or [F6a fine], or both; (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both”

Given his delusional outlook, we decided to respond substantively and make our comments known. We considered it would be prudent to “kill two birds with one stone” and consolidate the evidence of judicial corruption and fraud that Simon Just appears to want to condone, all at the same time.

Simon Just – “Spin vs Truth” & our compelling response consolidating the proof of the sham corrupt justice system of fraudster judges

Mr Just, Dated: 05/03/2022 at 06.33AM GMT

We encourage you to take this email and show it to whoever you are purporting to report us to.    Rather than engaging negatively, why don’t you want to expose the truth as to what is going on within the justice system?   Your articles appear biased toward the State and make no investigation into the substantive facts.    We are not confrontational as an organisation, we wish you no harm, and we would not want to resort to litigation unless we are forced to, however, we must set you straight and we have taken the time to provide this substantive explanation.   

We have published this notice to rebuke your allegations and we invite you for comment.   We shall publish any comments you wish to make.  

Headlines: 

A.    Your ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. 

B.    There is no harassment nor malicious communication and we encourage you to report us to police if you believe otherwise.  

C.    You should be advised, additionally, that our operation and our officers are all located worldwide and not in the UK.       

D.    There is no legislation that would prevent anyone, worldwide from using our services, they do, and many are from the UK.  

E.    There is no private investigator licensing requirements within our corporate jurisdiction. There is no licensing requirement for any of our operatives in the UK either.   

Summary of facts: 

1.   Ms Gissing-McMeel is not “our officer” as you describe.  Ms Gissing-McMeel has written one article on our site in relation to Cressida Dick.  We have never spoken with Mr Divine or the other party referred to in your website.     

2.  We do not agree that there is any “fair use” you have breached our copyright to make untrue, oppressive and defamatory allegations against this firm.   

3.   Mr Millinder is a victim of corruption.  He founded Intelligence UK International to expose and deal with it, assisting many victims of similar issues who are shunned by police and regulatory authorities, left with nowhere else to go for help.  

Evidence of judicial corruption: 

4.  Any lay person could determine (with the substantive evidence displayed within our website), that Mr Millinder has been defrauded in the name of justice and deprived of his right to equality before the law.     No responsible media outlet would seek to diminish that.   The articles we publish are factually accurate, investigated, researched and are substantially true.   Here is absolute proof that there has been fraud upon the Court in the Millinder v Middlesbrough Case; 

4.1.   It is concisely set out; here, that MFC unlawfully forfeited the wind turbine lease after refusing the connection.  We refer to the email from Mr Bloom of 30/04/2015 at 10.07AM attesting that he refused to take ownership of their substations, when it was condition precedent and the express requirement of the Distribution Network Operator (“DNO”) for them to have done so.   

4.2.   It is evidenced, here, that on 25/09/2012, during the option period, when it was an option, if either party became dissatisfied with either the commercial or technical arrangements being proposed, for the aggrieved party to negate without financial commitment, that MFC and their lawyers were acutely aware of the express requirement of the DNO for them to have done so.     The option period ran from 15/06/2012 – 17/06/2013 when the lease was completed.   Once the lease was completed on the basis of the pre-agreed connection specified by the DNO, the side agreement with the express obligation on MFC to take ownership of their substations to form the private network the turbine was to connect into, was competed by collateral contract.    It is evidenced here, that in February 2015, MFC refused to sign the connection agreement with the DNO.  

4.3.  It is evidenced here, that from 23/09/2013 – 23/12/2014 “Force Majeure” applied in the lease, suspending the liability to “commission” the wind turbine within 12-months from completion of the lease.   Schedule 7 of the lease provided for 365-days free of rent from which to commission the wind turbine.    The delay beyond reasonable control of Mr Millinder occurred 96-days into the 365-day period free of rent.   The screen shot of the email from “Maria” of Middlesbrough Council’s planning authority on 23/09/2013 attests that the Planning Authority (“LPA”) acknowledged that Mr Millinder had done as required to have discharged the condition, which prevented the turbine from lawful operation.    The LPA failed to act according to planning law by discharging the condition, when Mr Millinder had done as required to have discharged it, constituting an act beyond reasonable control of the developer which prevented him from constructing, connecting to the grid and operating the turbine.   The provision of “Force Majeure” in the lease covered such eventuality causing delays by third parties beyond reasonable control. 

4.4.  The delay subsisted and by 10/11/2014 even the Civil Aviation Authority were advising the LPA to sustain the condition, further proving that the delay was entirely beyond reasonable control of the developer. 

4.5.  On 23/12/2014 Mr Millinder successfully resolved the complex and contentious issue by lobbying with senior CAA officials who “U-turned” on their original decision and advised the LPA that the condition could be removed without compromising air safety and without any unduly onerous requirements by the Airport.     Here is the 05/01/2015 letter from the LPA to the Airport confirming the decision. 

4.6   By 05/01/2015 the wind turbine was ready to construct and was granted full planning permission.  Mr Millinder did not enjoy the 365-day period free of rent provided for in Schedule 7 of the lease (rent) and the period of Force Majeure suspended that obligation accordingly.  The first installment of rent in the sum of £15,000 was therefore payable on 17/09/2015 (296-days from 23/12/2014).    The rent payable MFC was £50,000 per annum. 

4.7.  Paragraph 4.1 above attests that on 30/04/2015 MFC refused the connection.  Force Majeure therefore continued to suspend any obligation as per paragraph 4.6 above, solely in favour of Tenant, the developer, Mr Millinder.   The irrefutable outcome being that even if MFC did not refuse the connection, they still unlawfully forfeited the lease on 19/08/2015, for the first instalment of rent did not fall due until 17/09/2015.   The completed terms of the contracts (the lease, energy supply agreement, connection deed and the NPG connection offer) cannot be diminished.   Any lay person could therefore establish that no rent was ever payable to MFC.    

4.8.  On 25/06/2015 MFC demanded that Mr Millinder paid them £256,269.89 of which £75,000 was for rent that was not payable and £181,269.89 was an invoice for energy supply

The energy supply agreement: 

4.8.  The energy supply agreement is conditional upon “The Generator’s” / Mr Millinder’s “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” and “commissioning” of the wind turbine.   Commissioning means to have constructed the capital equipment and to have connected the turbine infrastructure to the grid, so that it is capable of commercial operation.    The “Start Date” is the date from which the conditions precedent in clause 2 of the agreement are satisfied.    In absence of Mr Millinder’s satisfaction in full of those two conditions, there was no “Entitlement to agreed output” (agreement by Mr Millinder to supply power) and any “Invoicing & payment” was also contractually prohibited.    It follows therefore that any lay person in MFC’s position (they purport to be lawyers) could determine that after refusing the connection and preventing the turbine from being “commissioned”, they could not possibly claim for energy supply.    

The admission from MFC’s barrister on 09/01/2017 that “Force Majeure” has effect:

4.9. On 09/01/2017, in the High Court, Rolls Building on Fetter Lane in an ex-parte (without notice) injunction proceeding brought by MFC to prevent Mr Millinder’s company from recovering the assigned investments he assigned to EEI (Parent Company) on 29/06/2015, Mr Staunton, counsel acting for MFC admitted that no claims could be established for energy supply owing to the fact that “Force Majeure has effect“.  They failed to disclose the fact that they refused the connection and that any claim for energy supply was conditional, in breach of their legal duty to have disclosed (fraud).   They withheld 172-pages of witness evidence from the ex-parte injunction hearing in breach of their legal duty to have disclosed and lied about the assignment of the investments MFC had in their possession 3-times over, firstly on 30/06/2015 in hard copy served at the Stadium, then on 03/01/2017 (by email to Mr Bloom which he responded to) then on 06/01/2017 with the statutory demand served on MFC in hard copy by process server. 

4.10.   Mr Staunton however, lied about the most critical part of the case in Mr Millinder’s favour by stating there was no provision of Force Majeure in the Lease, but at the same time admitting that he knew the effect of the clause was to negate requirement to pay rent.  

Lord Justice Arnold committed fraud by concealment – on 09/01/2017 Arnold claimed in his judgment that the rent owed to MFC was £550,000:

4.11.  It is evidenced here, knowing that on 20/12/2016 MFC had increased the sum of their blackmail from £256,269.89 to £541,308.89, Arnold sought to conceal that by lying in his judgment and stating that the rent that was not owed was rent owed in the sum of £550,000 (from June 2015!).  (See paragraph 3 of the screen shot of his judgment).  Arnold was concealing the fact that £181,269.89 of the fraudulent claim used to unlawfully forfeit was for energy supply and that £75,000 was for rent that was not owed.   Anyone can determine that, the evidence does not deceive, Arnold did create that judgment.   It is a fraud to conceal fraud, but it is proven that Arnold has perverted the course of justice. 

24-days after MFC’s counsel admitted that no claims could be established, on 02/02/2017 MFC and their lawyers claimed over £4.1 million:

4.12.   We exhibit the 3rd fraudulent claim made against Mr Millinder’s wind turbine sole purpose company that MFC vandalised, in the sum of £4,111,87475 of which £4,031,664.80 was for energy supply and £80,209.95 was for rent.   

On 05/02/2018 Lord Justice Nugee found that MFC did unlawfully forfeit the lease and no money was owed to them (stating the obvious): 

4.13.  On 05/02/2018, as attested in the transcript of the hearing and the judgment Lord Justice Nugee, then Mr Justice Nugee found that MFC did unlawfully forfeit the lease based on their unwarranted demand (blackmail) in the sum of £256,269.89.   Likewise, in the same section, it is attested that Nugee found that Staunton did twice lie about the operative provision of Force Majeure in the lease and that he, his instructing solicitors (Womble Bond Dickinson UK LLP), MFC and their Parent Company providing the cross undertaking guarantee, did withhold the 172-pages of witness evidence Millinder relied upon as being withheld in breach of their legal duty to disclose.  Nugee did nothing to provide remedy, he perverted the course of justice, concealing what is the most prolific case of fraud by failing to disclose information by lawyers during ex-parte injunction proceedings in the history of UK law. 

On 05/02/2015 Lord Justice Nugee committed fraud by false representation by falsely representing the terms of the assigned investments: 

4.14. Section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 commits any absolute assignment of a debt or other thing in action as being effectual in law from the date notice has been given to the debtor.  It was the assigned investments which founded Mr Millinder’s statutory demand, in the sum of £530,000, part of the £770,000 investment made by him in developing the project.   £200,000 was not sought to have been collected, as Mr Millinder  wanted to retain his claim in that sum in EW as requisite majority creditor, with the remaining creditors claims totaling less than £40,000. 

4.15.   We evidence here, from Nugee’s judgment of 05/02/2018 that after finding that the claim of the demand could not be disputed, because “Force Majeure has effect” and therefore no rent or energy supply was ever owed, Nugee committed fraud by false representation to assist MFC and their conspirers in using the court to defraud Millinder of the assigned investments, as they did his democratic rights as requisite majority creditor with their circa £4.1 million claim sustained by the liquidator, Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, who was supposed to me acting in Millinder’s interests. 

4.16.  We evidence here, the original terms of the absolute assignment that Nugee falsely represented. 

4.17.  We evidence here, that after winding up EEI on 28/03/2018 for their fraudulently obtained £25,000 originating from their fraud ex-parte between 09/01/2017 – 16/01/2017, Staunton admitted in court (as attested from the transcript) that the cross claim assigned investments extinguished their £25,000.  

4.18.  We evidence here, that on 12/11/2018, in his skeleton argument for the hearing that eventually came before the corrupt Master of the Rolls, head of civil justice for England & Wales, Staunton then “U-turned” on the claims he knew could not be established on 09/01/2017 by his own admission and after attending the hearing on 05/02/2018 when Nugee found precisely that.  

4.19.  Bizarrely however, Staunton appeared to have “re-incarnated” the £25,000 fraudulent liability in preparation for the next layer of collusion before Vos, after admitting 7-months prior, on 11/04/2018 that “there’s a cross claim that extinguishes the liability to pay the £25,000”

Vos affronts the law, contradicts the finding of Nugee in the same court and reincarnates both the £25,000 fraud and the £256,268.89 fraud whilst failing to try the £4.1 million fraud that Millinder asked him to remove: 

4.20.   At paragraph 105 of his judgment of 09/02/2019, which was designed only to assist MFC, discrediting Millinder in the public domain whilst concealing the blatant proven fraud that even their own barrister admitted, 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”

4.21.  Vos did the same as Arnold did on 09/01/2017, concealing the fraud, knowing that £75,000 of the blackmail was for rent that was not payable and that £181,269.89 was for energy supply that was not payable.   It is attested that Vos is stating the fraudulent claim is a “quantified claim for rent”. 

Vos affronts the Insolvency Court’s duty of inquiry to assist the offenders in concealing their fraud: 

4.22.  Millinder’s application of 28/09/2018 was an application to try the fraud that had been concealed by the corrupt judiciary in the proceedings to date after their certified the proven case (issue estoppel applies to the finding) as “no more or less than bound to fail” because they have been misusing the law around civil restraint orders to oppressively conceal fraud whilst depriving Millinder of his right to a fair and unbiased trial and of his right to equality before the law.     

4.23.   Vos affronted all the long established precedents and the rule of law that determines it is not res judicata (an abuse of process) to go behind any judgment in the insolvency court whenever there is a case made out from which to impugn the debt in question, even if there has been multiple attempts to do so, and even if refusal has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.  Vos and the rest of the offenders were sustaining the fraudulent liabilities to defraud creditors.  We refer to those long established precedents here.  

4.24.   At paragraph 107 of his judgment, it is proven that Vos sought to fetter the duty of inquiry when Millinder specifically requested trial of the issues.   Vos stated this: 

 “I should say at once that Mr Millinder cannot ask me now to decide whether Nugee J and HHJ Pelling were mistaken about the validity of the alleged assignment. That could only have been done on appeal from those decisions, which are now out of time”.

4.25.  Yet Vos knew that MFC’s own barrister had himself admitted that the cross claim assigned investments are valid and that the assigned investment extinguished the liability to pay the £25,000, as he did when he retracted the claims; £256,269.89 / £541,308.89 / £4,111874.75 on 12/11/2018 in light of attending that hearing before Nugee on 05/02/2018 after first himself admitting on 09/01/2017 that no claims could be established because “Force Majeure has effect”.

Conclusion: 

And so therefore, it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, substantiated with conclusive evidence that the English judges involved in this case are lawless, have committed fraud and have acted with genuine bias to assist MFC in using the court to defraud Millinder, whilst then concealing their fraud by oppressively branding Millinder a “vexatious litigant” because he wanted the Court to act lawfully in removing the proven fraudulent liabilities. 
In light of this substantive evidence and the time we have spent setting out the position, we now request that you correct your article accordingly and that you do the right thing by exposing the truth, for failure to do so, will establish that in fact it is you who is the troll, seeking to defame those who expose fraud and injustice in the public sector.   You will prove yourself to be, Mr (Un)Just.  The ball is on your court.    

You will note, the purported judges involved are all copied, they too know what they have done, which is why they are in hiding, although, we welcome them to come forward and attempt to substantiate and account for their actions.  The evidence does not deceive. 

Yours sincerely,

INTELLIGENCE UK INTERNATIONAL S.A 

We are awaiting the comments back from Simon Just so we can share his philosophy with you all. We do not take kindly to those who attack journalists who expose the truth whist targeting victims of abuse by the State. Please share widely.

About author

We are Intelligence UK International, a leading global private intelligence agency dedicated to investigating and combatting domestic corruption and economic crime where law enforcement fail. Bringing you hard hitting investigatory journalism, holding the unaccountable to account.
Related posts
UK corruption

Paul Millinder a victim of 15 judge UK criminal conspiracy

UK corruption

OPERATION UKJ - Report on UK judicial fraud & corruption

UK corruption

Scot Young murder insolvency & the missing £4 billion estate

UK corruption

Judicial corruption & the decline of democracy

Sign up for our Newsletter updates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Worth reading...
UK Human Rights Act reform and why we object
error: Alert: All our content is protected - You are prohibited from copying !