Sir Geoffrey Vos – Master of the Rolls impairing English law

Sir Geoffrey Vos is Master of the Rolls, the second highest ranking judge and head of civil justice for England and Wales. You would think he would lead by example, exuding outstanding knowledge of the law, integrity and advocation of impartiality at the highest level to match his annual salary of £214,165, paid by the taxpayer. On the contrary.

Sir Geoffrey Vos has been impairing law established since the 18th century, turning from independent referee of the match to striker for Middlesbrough FC, making up for what they lack on the pitch with misconduct of the rules and foul play to ensure the ball was always in their court. Insolvency set off. Geoffrey Vos. Mr Justice Swift.

Exclusive investigation – The Master of the Rolls and the courts he commands are lawless and compromised

Acting with favour and ill-will between 28th September 2018 through to 8th March 2019 in his role as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Geoffrey Vos breached his oath, abusing the trust the public places in him, before he took office as Master of the Rolls. Sir Geoffrey Vos. Master of the Rolls.

The Tory establishment promoted him for following orders, preventing justice being served on fellow corrupt Tories, a case of effectual bribery sponsored by the taxpayer. A typical trait of systemic corruption, compliance is always rewarded. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls. Insolvency set off. Mr Justice Swift.

In Re Fraser, ex parte Central Bank of London [1892] 2 QB 633, CA Lord Justice Kay said: Sir Geoffrey Vos Master of the Rolls.

It is old law in bankruptcy that, neither upon an attempt to prove a debt, nor upon a petition for an adjudication of bankruptcy or a receiving order against a debtor, is a judgment against him for the debt conclusive. In Ex parte Bryant (1), Lord Eldon said: ” Proof upon a judgment will not stand merely upon that, if there is not a debt due in ‘ truth and reality,’ for which the consideration must be looked to.” Can this judgment be treated as conclusive in bankruptcy because the debtor has unsuccessfully attempted to set it aside ? I think not and I cannot see how the matter is any more res judicata because there has been an unsuccessful appeal to this Court. I agree in all that the Master of the Rolls has said on this point.

In the same case, the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Esher went on to add: Mr Justice Swift. Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos.

“The existence of the judgment is no doubt prima facie evidence of a debt; but still the Court of Bankruptcy is entitled to inquire whether there really is a debt due to the petitioning creditor“

Fraser was a judgment debtor, who had exhaustively challenged the imposition of a judgment debt upon him, but without success. Fraser’s application to set aside the judgment debt had failed before a Master (twice), Judge (once), Divisional Court (once) and Court of Appeal (once), yet this presented no bar in the bankruptcy Court.

Mr Millinder’s had not had 5 attempts to set aside the judgment debt, he was merely asking to do it once before HHJ Pelling QC who concealed the fraud and deliberately failed to exercise the duty of enquiry labelled the application to do so, “an abuse of process” to originate a void without jurisdiction Extended Civil Restraint Order to prevent Mr Millinder from exercising the right, a right granted in law. Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos. Mr Justice Swift.

In re Hawkins (1865) 1 QB 404:

“…the Court of Bankruptcy is not bound by a judgment at law, but is entitled to investigate all the facts of the case whenever, but not before, a prima facie case impeaching the judgment is made out.“

In Ex parte Kibble, Re Onslow (1875):

“It follows that the grounds upon which a bankruptcy court may go behind a judgment are more extensive than the grounds upon which an ordinary court of law or equity may set it aside.“

“In particular, a bankruptcy court will go behind a judgment if satisfied that the judgment creditor manifestly had no claim against the judgment debtor on which the judgment could have been founded“

Sir Geoffrey Vos sought to deprive Mr Millinder of the duty of inquiry, a right granted by law of which he is entitled whilst in the insolvency court

“100. As I have already made clear, the circumstances in which a court can set aside or even investigate, the correctness of orders, save in the context of properly constituted appeals, are very strictly limited. Our courts rightly set great store by the finality of the orders that are made after argument. The option for taking two bites at the cherry are limited indeed“

Sir Geoffrey Vos affronted the law he is paid to administer

In the case of Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd v. Earth Energy Investments LLP & Others [2019] EWHC 226 (Ch), the politically controlled judiciary of England and Wales were the referees turned strikers for Middlesbrough FC, owned by Steve Gibson OBE the Tory Teesside politician.

There is some established pattern under this kleptocracy of Tories being provided impunity by police and courts. This is the cream of the cake, or the icing on it.

Background

Mr Millinder, a wind farm developer, completed an option to lease an area of the overflow carpark at Middlesbrough Football Club’s (“MFC”) Riverside Stadium. The favourable wind speed conditions at the site were optimally suited to his plan in developing on-site embedded wind energy infrastructure projects at energy intensive properties, offsetting electricity that would have otherwise been drawn from the grid, with energy delivered via a private wire supply direct from the turbine.

The purpose was for EW to construct, connect to the grid and operate a 1.5 mega watt, 136 metre high wind turbine. Power was to be delivered to the stadium by an 11Kv private network. It was the obligation of MFC to take ownership of their two dedicated on site substations to establish a private 11KV network which they were to own. The wind turbine was to connect into their private network.

MFC were to benefit by a £50,000 a year rent and free electricity up to 1,500 mega watt hours per annum. Mr Millinder, through his sole purpose development company, Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW”) was to benefit through sale of electricity to EDF Energy under OFGEM’s 20-year guaranteed feed in tariff providing a stable, predictable return on investment linked to the Retail Price Index (“RPI”).

The upside to EW was circa £520,000 net per annum increasing with the RPI over the 25 year lifetime of the turbine.

Force Majeure suspended any obligation to pay rent under the lease – No rent was ever owed to MFC

The provision and wide definition of force majeure at Schedule 5, Clause 6 of the lease (above) covered any event or circumstance which prevented EW from performing on its obligations.

96-days into the 365-day period free of rent, on 23/09/2013 the project suffered a delay of force majeure which prevented the turbine from lawful operation caused by a third party. The delay subsisted until 23/12/2014, when Mr Millinder successfully resolved the issue.

From 23/12/2014 the obligation to commission the turbine within the 365-day period free of rent re-commenced, with the carry over of 296-days free of rent from which to do so. The first installment of rent in the sum of £15,000 was therefore payable on 17/09/2015

On 15/04/2015, knowing that he made any agreement to supply power to MFC conditional upon “commissioning” of the wind turbine and “entering into a connection agreement” Mr Millinder offered to deposit the sum of the MFC ransom demand in Escrow, pending resolution by an independent arbitrator.

On 19/08/2015 MFC unlawfully forfeited the lease based on their demand for £256,269.89. See our report setting out the case and judicial corruption.

The grid connection configuration was finalised during the option period – The Club refused it nearly 2-years later

MFC were to own the part of the connection shaded blue and red. Green is the wind turbine substation and the connection to the 11KV “customer owned” infrastructure.

On 30/04/2015 MFC refused to enable the connection for the wind turbine, rendering the project useless. Without a connection, the turbine cannot operate. Thereafter, force majeure continued to absolve the 168-day period remaining, free of rent.

The EW claim against MFC arose on 30/04/2015 and was proven before the case came to Court

The EW multi-million pound claim against MFC for unlawful forfeiture arose on 30/06/2015 when MFC refused the connection, preventing Mr Millinder from performing on the rights granted. Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos.

There was a pre-existing claim originating from mutual dealings against MFC that always extinguished any claim they could possibly bring, even if their claim was legitimate!

The insolvency proceedings

Whilst EW was preparing its case to sue MFC for damages for unlawfully forfeiting the lease, HMRC presented a winding up petition against it for tax liabilities that would have otherwise been paid were it not for MFC vandalising the project. Being an expert in insolvency law, Mr Millinder made a Company Voluntary Arrangement proposal to the 3 EW creditors which was accepted. Insolvency set off. Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls failed to apply the law.

On 10/09/2016 Mr Millinder’s lawyers filed documentation in hard copy to the High Court Insolvency & Companies Court setting out the EW multi-million pound claim against MFC for damages. On 19/09/2016 the case came back to Court. MFC appeared on the petition, falsely claiming to be a creditor in the sum of £256,269.89, being the claim they used to unlawfully forfeit.

The mandatory legal duty to apply insolvency set off where there are claims arising through mutual dealings

In all insolvency proceedings the Court has a mandatory legal duty to apply insolvency set off where there has been mutual dealings between the company and a creditor, or one claiming to prove. Sums due from one must be set off against sums due from the other, giving way to a single net balance [rule 14.25(2)] in favour of either one or the other.

Only after application of set off can a creditor go on to prove in the company’s liquidation [rule 14.25(3)]. If there is a claim due to the company, then the claim must be realised as a dividend and paid to creditors pursuant to rule 14.25(4) or, for contingent assets, rule 14.25(5) of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016.

On 19/09/2016 the known corrupt then Chief Insolvency Registrar, Stephen Baister colluded with MFC’s counsel and deliberately failed in his legal duty to apply set off.

Irredeemable fundamental defect renders the EW winding up order a nullity

In an exceptionally well known constitutional law case, the House of Lords, what is now the Supreme Court in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147 established what is known as the “collateral fact doctrine”. What this essentially means is that a distinction must be made between misconstruction of an enabling statute for the kind of case meant to be dealt which is a jurisdictional error and that of a misconstruction of the statutory description of the situation which would be an error within jurisdiction, the latter rendering the decision void.

In the same judgment Lord Reid affirmed that “jurisdiction” has wide meaning. No judge has jurisdiction to wilfully fail to administer the law, and likewise, no judge has jurisdiction to originate one nullity after another, yet that is precisely what Sir Geoffrey Vos and all of those in the case since 19/09/2016 have done.

In MacFoy, Denning LJ held that a fundamental defect, such as failure to apply statute where required, renders the proceeding a nullity, and famously, that:

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 MFC proofs of debt arose solely through fraud and maladministration by the Court

It was the fundamental and irredeemable defect in the Court wilfully failing to apply set off of the EW claim against the non existent £256,269.89 MFC claim which caused Mr Millinder to make applications to remove the later fraudulent claims that should have never arisen.

Rule 14.25(3) is law that affirms only after application of mandatory insolvency accounting set off can a creditor go on to prove a debt against the company. On 01/12/2016 MFC submitted a proof of debt against EW in the sum of £256,269.89. The proofs was entirely fictitious, but even if it were genuine, it was to be mandatorily set off against the EW claim.

On 20/12/2016 MFC submitted a further proof of debt in the sum of £541,308.89 of which £75,000 was rent and £466,308.89 was for energy supply. On 02/02/2017 MFC submitted a further proof of debt, this time with over £4 million claimed for energy supply when in any event, any “entitlement to agreed output” was subject to Mr Millinder’s “satisfaction in full” of entering into the connection agreement which MFC refused. In absence of, there was no agreement by EW or Mr Millinder to supply power and any “invoicing & payment” was contractually prohibited. Of the claim used to forfeit the lease, £181,269.89 was for energy supply.

The void, without jurisdiction extended civil restraint order deployed to conceal fraud and maladministration

To conceal their fraud upon the court and the multiple fraudulent claims accepted by the delinquent corrupt liquidator, Anthony Hannon, the Official Receiver of London, HHJ Pelling QC (below), the rogue corrupt judge was factored in to assist in the cover up.

On 28/06/2018 he made a void, without jurisdiction Extended Civil Restraint order against Mr Millinder founded not only by the nullity EW winding up order, but by a second void winding up order against its Parent Company, Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI”) on 28/03/2018.

Once again, the corrupt, politically controlled Court deliberately failed to apply mandatory set off, knowing that EEI has a cross claim exceeding £900,000 against MFC’s false claim of £25,000. By then, Pelling had before him categoric proof by admission of Ulick Staunton, MFC’s own barrister evidenced on the 11/04/2018 hearing transcript that the EEI cross claim extinguished the £25,000:

MR STAUNTON: — and paras.17 to 24. So there’s a cross claim which extinguishes the liability to pay £25,000”

On 8th June 2018, what came before Pelling in the insolvency court in respect of the EW c£4.1 million MFC claim and the EEI fraudulent £25,000, was not only prima facie grounds to prove that the is no debt owed in truth and reality, but there was the admission above from Staunton that the petition debt was extinguished.

The transcript and judgment by Nugee J of 05/02/2018 was also before Pelling where he found that the £4.1 million claim against EW was entirely false:

Nugee J: £541,000 and then 4. —
Ms Jones: Yes, and then 4.1 million.
Nugee J: Yes, I don’t think I know how those sums are made up.
Ms Jones: No, I’m not sure I do either —

Ms Jones QC is a deputy Chancery High Court judge and of course, both Nugee J and Jones QC knew that the claims were just that, made up frauds by false representation that came about solely as a result of the Court’s lawless, fraudulent activity in deliberately failing to apply the law in set off to assist MFC.

Even then, that did not stop Pelling from defeating the doctrine of inquiry and fulfilling his mission to pervert the course of justice

Pelling, acting with favour and ill-will, certified the proven case as no more or less than bound to fail, knowing that Staunton himself admitted that the rescission application is proven.

The application which came before Pelling asked him to exercise the duty of inquiry and set aside the fraudulently obtained £25,000 winding up order and to set aside the void, without jurisdiction order made by Registrar Clive Hugh Jones which originated from the void EW winding up order. Jones, the corrupt insolvency registrar abused his position, refusing to act according to the law conferred in rule 14.11 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, sustaining the knowingly false proof of debt in the sum exceeding £4.1 million .

Mr Millinder wanted to set aside the void order underpinning the fraudulent claim, he was denied the right, ex debito justitiae to have done so.

Throughout the proceedings there is a clear and established pattern of lawlessness and deceit, starting from deliberately failing to apply the mandatory law in insolvency set off, which paved the way for MFC and their conspirers to defraud Mr Millinder whilst the corrupt judiciary concealed and aided and abetted.

Insolvency court’s duty of inquiry – No issue estoppel where there is no debt in truth and reality

As addressed earlier in this article, since the early 18th century it has been the law that there is no issue estoppel in the insolvency court in cases where it can be established there is not a debt owed in truth and reality.

In this day and age however, with these imposters purporting to administer our laws, everything is very selective, particularly where Mr Millinder is concerned.

Pelling, Vos, and later Swift in the Administrative Court and then Easthope-Davis in the Court of Appeal, sought to affront and misrepresent this long established doctrine to assist MFC in their quest to defraud, whilst denying Mr Millinder his rights granted by the law.

20th century authorities – the long established doctrine of no res judicata in insolvency proceedings

In (a) Barclays Bank v Atay 2015, Chief Registrar Briggs referred to the doctrine:

The ability of the Bankruptcy Court to go behind a judgment where necessary was well established by a series of 19th Century cases and although this species of scrutiny is not carried out as a matter of course, it is always possible for it to be done if it is expressly requested, whether by the debtor himself or by the trustee in bankruptcy”.

“Nor is it any obstacle to the invocation of this doctrine that the debtor has originally consented to the very judgment against himself which he is now attacking, or that his earlier appeal from the judgment was dismissed“

In (b) Dawodo [2001], the former Master of the Rolls referred to the doctrine of inquiry in a slightly different context:

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

Sir Geoffrey Vos had before him not only the admission from Ulick Staunton himself that he “U-turned on the claims, but a finding by Nugee J from 05/02/2018 cited in the application notice itself that no money was ever owed to MFC and even that did not deter him.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, acting with favour and illwill trashed the long established case law from the 18th century to present day

Sir Geoffrey Vos created a new precedent, only for Mr Millinder’s case:

100. …the option for taking two bites at the cherry are limited indeed“

Thereafter, at paragraph 105 of his judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos lied, knowing that no rent or energy supply was owed:

“On 25th June 2015, Middlesbrough invoiced Empowering Wind MFC for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89“

Vos was concealing the claim for £4,111,874.75 when the application for trial asked him to exercise his duty of inquiry and to set aside the debt and the judgment after it had been found by Nugee J that the claim is entirely false. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls.

Vos made no reference to the fraud by false representation that was sought to have been removed whatsoever, but concealed the blackmail used to unlawfully forfeit the lease, knowing that £181,269.89 of the claim was invoices for energy supply when any “invoicing & payment” was contractually prohibited, and that no rent was owed.

In the Administrative Court, continuing the fraud upon the Court and perversion of the course of justice, Mr Justice Swift jumped on the bandwagon

Swift, another corrupt judge installed by the Tory establishment to ensure their sinister deeds are executed was instructed to originate a void, without jurisdiction “all proceedings restraint order” under S.42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against Mr Millinder to conceal their criminality and wrongdoings. Mr Justice Swift. Sir Geoffrey Vos.

Defeating the rule of law to conceal the judicial conspiracy to defraud, fraud by MFC, the corrupt liquidator and their lawyers the Tory Attorney General for England and Wales stepped in to conceal the proven criminal fraud and fraud upon the court. Mr Justice Swift was the “go to judge” to ensure they got when they wanted.

In the Attorney General v Millinder [2021] judgment, for void, without jurisdiction all proceedings restraint order, the decision was based on the precis that there was no fraud and that Mr Millinder was wrong about the insolvency court’s duty of inquiry. Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos.

Essentially, Mr Justice Swift did precisely what Vos did, he concealed the fraud (perverted the course of justice) and affronted the long established law, knowing that he never had any jurisdiction in any event for the proceedings were void from the outset. Sir Geoffrey Vos.

Swift, like Vos, was taken to absolute categoric proof of two counts of serious criminal fraud committed by Ulick Staunton which originated the 28/03/2018 winding up order, yet he, like Vos, concerned the fraud to prevent justice being served on MFC and their conspirators. Mr Justice Swift. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls.

At paragraph 42 of his mala fide void judgment, Mr Justice Swift stated this: Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos.

As to the second ground, Fancourt J held (at paragraph 16-17) that unless or until the various orders and “totally without merit” certifications of other Judges were set aside he was bound by them since they were matters of record, and that it was inappropriate to seek to go behind such orders and certifications. That was obviously correct.

Mr Justice Fancourt was knowingly acting without jurisdiction to conceal more criminal fraud

Swift knew that Fancourt never had jurisdiction either, for he deliberately evaded all Mr Millinder’s evidence, acting with genuine bias and suppressing his application for trial on 06/11/2020 to prevent justice being served on MFC, resulting in Mr Millinder filing an application for Fancourt’s recusal which was issued on 10/11/2020.

It is indisputable that no judge has jurisdiction to continue presiding over a case of which he is being recused without first determining the application to recuse that judge. That did not stop Fancourt, for he, like Vos and the rest had defeated the rules of natural justice to assist the offenders. They were acting under orders.

Fancourt failed to determine the grounds for recusal, and on 11/11/2020 he affixed himself to the case he was being recused, acting knowingly without jurisdiction to originate a void, without jurisdiction General Civil Restraint Order. Mr Justice Swift relied on that void, without jurisdiction act to originate his own.

Mr Justice Swift & Lady Justice Andrews concealed criminal fraud and abolished the doctrine of no res judicata in insolvency

At paragraph 58 of the void, without jurisdiction restraint order Andrews LJ, who was factored in to lend credence to Swift’s malfeasance said this:

However, the Bankruptcy court has no duty to go behind the judgment, which is prima facie evidence of the debt, and it is for the Bankruptcy court to decide whether on the evidence before it, the circumstances that would justify it in doing so have been established. As the Chancellor explained in his judgment, the Bankruptcy court (ICCJ Barber) was satisfied that the debt was due when it made the winding up order in respect of Earth Energy, and Mr Millinder has exhausted all legitimate attempts to set aside the winding up order.

It is proven that Sir Geoffrey Vos, the then Chancellor deliberately and maliciously concealed the fact that firstly, the winding up order of 28/03/2018 against Earth Energy (EEI) was founded by conscious and premeditated fraud, but secondly, statutory law commits the MFC petition as being a nullity, for it was extinguished by over 34 times on 12/02/2018 when it was presented and there was never a debt owed in truth and reality. Both are grounds to exercise the duty of inquiry, but they were all working for MFC.

It was ultra vires (beyond their powers) to impair the law which commits the assignment notice as being effective from 30/06/2015, yet they did so to assist the offenders in defrauding Mr Millinder of over £900,000 knowing that the court deliberately failed in its mandatory duty to apply insolvency set off.

Essentially, Mr Justice Swift and Lady Justice Andrews were working for Vos to conceal his malfeasance. Their judgment was made in bad faith, violating the rules of natural justice, rendering their decision void on that ground, but additionally on the grounds they never had any jurisdiction to make it. One nullity cannot originate another.

Mr Millinder then appealed the S.42 order and permission to appeal was refused by Lord Justice Easthope-Davis, the corrupt judge who perverted the course of justice in the Hillsborough inquiry. In that judgment, at page 2, paragraphs B – D, Easthope-Davis cited only a part of the judgment in Dawodo, which was one of the authorities relied upon:

“…what is required before the Court is prepared to investigate a judgment debt, in the absence of an outstanding appeal or an application to set it aside, is some fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice. The latter phrase is of course capable of wide application according to the particular circumstances of the case. 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 from the passage of the Dawodo judgment cited by Easthope-Davis that Etherton M.R said that what is required for the court to exercise duty of inquiry is that it 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“.

Easthope-Davis deliberately sought to evade the rest of the same paragraph in Dawodo by Etherton M.R where he stated; 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 see Re Fraser [1892] 2QB 633″

At paragraph D of the Court of Appeal order, Easthope-Davis stated this:

“Swift J in his judgment found that, for the principle relied on by the Appellant to have any application, there must be fraud or similar. His conclusion (with which Andrews LJ agreed) was that there was no evidence of fraud”

The paragraph above conflicts entirely with the very same paragraph he cited from Etherton M.R in Dawodo, but in any event, they were all perverting the course of justice, concealing evidence of prolific criminal fraud which attested Staunton, counsel for MFC’s actual state of mind as to knowledge of the facts he falsely represented during 3 separate court proceedings.

Lord Justice Easthope-Davis in the Court of Appeal concealed criminal fraud – Perverting the course of justice

Easthope-Davis then jumped on the bandwagon with the rest of the judicial offenders and at paragraph 8 of his order he said this:

Having reviewed with care the material provided by the Appellant I find myself in the same position as Sir Geoffrey Vos in 2019. Although the allegations of fraud and corruption are detailed, none is supported by any evidence

Indeed, transcripts of 3 those hearings are accurate records of what was said, providing conclusive evidence that Staunton knew the representations he was making were false and therefore he knew what he was doing was dishonest.

Undoubtedly, by virtue of the fact that Staunton is counsel, his conduct would be considered dishonest in the opinion of the ordinary informed lay observer as it is proven, by his own oral admission, he had prior knowledge that the representations he was making are false.

That completes the actus reus of fraud by false representation on 2 counts, an indictable offence. Likewise, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that all the purported judges in this case have perverted the course of justice, concealing fraud committed by fellow corrupt lawyers and then concealing criminal property and fraud with jurisdictionally void restraint orders whilst targeting the victim, Mr Millinder.

Following in the footsteps of Sir Geoffrey Vos – The 11/11/2021 Court of Appeal decision by Easthope-Davis

Order_Easthope_Davis_11_11_2021_CoA

Even acting as strikers for the Club, rather than independent referees, with all against just one, Mr Millinder on the other side, they could only rely on cheating and bending the rules to score goals, but the goals they scored were only in foul play, they never did count for anything.

They maliciously and oppressively branded Mr Millinder a “vexatious litigant” because they are cheats and bad losers. That is clearly going to cost them all their freedom and their careers. Criminal offences do not expire and perverting the course of public justice in conspiracy is an extremely serious offence.

Be sure to study in detail our analysis of the Sir Geoffrey Vos void judgment and the application for trial of the fraud he concealed.

You are paying your taxes to fund these abhorrent dishonest imposters who do are proven to do the opposite of law and justice.

We have asked Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Easthope-Davis, Lady Justice Andrews, the Lord Chief Justice and Dominic Raab, the Lord Chancellor responsible for judicial discipline to comment on this article and we shall publish their comments in the next sequel.

Help us to help you, like, comment and share this article far and wide. Transparency is the cure for corruption.