UK corruption – Judges are referees who move the goal posts

UK corruption: English judges are fake actors, double dealing as independent referees of the match, whilst acting as strikers, moving the goal posts and compromising fair play, ensuring the Tory team always wins, irrespective of the laws of the game. UK corruption.

Exclusive investigation: UK corruption at the core of the justice system

Middlesbrough FC made up for what they lack on the pitch, by keeping the ball firmly in their court. The referees joined the offending team to ensure the goalposts were left wide open, handicapping the opposing team. UK corruption. Sir Geoffrey Vos . Master of the Rolls.

In football, like in life, you must learn to play within the rules of the game. Double dealing fails when truth prevails.

In our game of international intelligence, we are often surrounded by liars and cheats, but at the end of the day, no matter how far they want to go, at least the evidence does not deceive. The lie is only effective until the truth be told.

In his opening remarks during the Singapore Panel on Judicial Ethics and Dilemmas on the Bench, Lord Justice Neuberger of the Supreme Court described the traditional role of a common law judge;

“This approach is emblematic of the common law system, sometimes characterised as accusatorial, with two (or sometimes more than two) parties battling it out like two football teams or two tennis players, and the judge acting as a disinterested, detached referee or umpire, only getting involved for two purposes – (i) in order to resolve procedural disputes before or during the trial, and (ii) in order to decide who wins on the basis of an assessment of the evidence which has been adduced and the legal arguments which have been advanced“. Middlesbrough FC.

It is widely established that a civil judge is not so much a seeker of truth, but that his duty is to act as an independent referee there to administer justice between the parties according to the laws of the land. UK corruption.

What about in cases where both parties agree the same issue? This was the case in the situation of Millinder v Middlesbrough FC, but the judges themselves came in as a player for the Boro, trying to convince Millinder that “white is black” when it is already proven to be white.

There was no dispute of the facts to resolve, so the judges “stepped into the shoes of the Club” to create something from nothing, a fraud.

On 12th November 2018 the Club’s barrister retracted the claims

The Club’s claims against Millinder’s company of £256,269.89, £541,308/89, £4,111,874.75 and £619,774.48, fell away, by their barrister’s own admission. It was common ground on both sides of the pitch that the away team, Middlesbrough (“Boro”) could not establish any goal against Millinder, but the referees in the London Court made the rules up as they went along.

Tory interference was leading the game from kick off on 15/11/2017 right to the end on 11/11/2021, but the game continues, foul play does not count.

On 11th March 2018 the Club’s barrister admitted that Millinder’s cross claim extinguished their £25,000 fraudulent liability

Screen shot from the transcript of the hearing before the corrupt Chief Registrar, Nicholas Briggs on 11/04/2018 who was working for the other side anyway:

Not satisfied with defrauding Millinder of the £9.2 million damages claim originating from proven unlawful forfeiture of the Lease, the foul players had their sights set on Millinder’s investment in the project, which he had assigned by legal assignment on 29th June 2015.

It never occurred to Vos, nor any of the purported judges involved to question how, by the Club’s barrister’s own admission, an alleged debt of £25,000 that was extinguished by over 30 times on 11th April 2018, as it was also on 5th February 2018, 4-days before the petition was presented, could re-materialise 7-months later on 12th November 2018.

Staunton’s fraud by false representation on 28th March 2018

On 5th February 2018, Staunton was as aware of the assigned investments as he was on 9th January 2017 when Millinder’s Parent Company served a statutory demand on the Club for £530,000, part of those assigned investments;

Mr Staunton: Yeah. Now, of important to note page 174, there’s an assertion there’d been an assignment

Nugee J: And that was one of the documents referred to in, in Penningtons letter of the 11th

Mr Staunton: Second page in. Reading that second paragraph, what’s assigned to EEI are the investments, the £200,000.

“EEI” is “Earth Energy Investments LLP”, Millinder’s Parent Company. It was the cross claim assigned investments that Staunton then went on to falsely represent in Millinder’s absence to defraud him of £770,000 by winding up his Parent Company on 28th March 2018, knowing, from 9th January 2017,as he did by his own admission on 5th February 2018 that it was the assigned investments that extinguished the liability to pay the £25k:

It was common ground on either side of the pitch that Millinder’s cross claim of £770,000 plus interest extinguished the Club’s £25,000 and that the Club unlawfully forfeited the Lease, because it could not bring any claim against either Empowering Wind, or Earth Energy or A (Applicant). The corrupt judges assisted the offenders in advancing their fraud anyway.

On 5th February 2018, Nugee J found the obvious, that no claims could be established by Middlesbrough, in his judgment he stated;

“on the basis of those matters Middlesbrough demanded payment of money from EW, terminated the lease for non payment of rent and subsequently appeared as a supporting creditor in support of a petition to wind up EW”

The Master of the Rolls, the main referee of the match, Sir Geoffrey Vos, head of civil justice for the England team, came into the game on 9th February 2019 after hanging back in reserve, but he came in late, turning from referee to striker, leading to his own downfall.

It was at at paragraph 105 of his judgment, Vos re invented the claim that were already found to be false: On 25th June 2015 Middlesbrough FC invoiced Empowering Wind MFC Ltd for a quantified claim for rent in the sum of £256,269.89.

Playing foul, Vos knew that his predecessor in a previous match, Nugee J, a fellow freemason and close associate of Ulick Staunton had found that neither rent or energy supply was owed, as will become clear later in this article, he too was playing foul, they all were, concealing the fact that £181,269.89 of the fraudulent unwarranted demand was invoices for energy supply, they were contractually prohibited from invoicing for.

The referees replicated the same foul play by counsel for the Club on 9th January 2017, lying and stating that the claim was for rent knowing that the bulk of it was for energy supply, but in any event, neither energy supply nor rent was owed.

On 9th January 2017 the Club’s barrister admitted that no money was owed for energy supply but lied about Force Majeure in the Lease

On 9th January 2017, during an ex-parte (without notice) injunction hearing called on by the Club so that they could defraud Millinder of the investment he had assigned to Parent Company just 4-days after receiving their demand on 25/06/2015, Staunton, counsel for the Club admitted that:

The respondent argues constantly about force majeure. Can you turn back to p.22, please? There is a definition clause for force majeure. The very curious thing is, although it is part of the definition clause of the lease, there is no further mention in the lease of force majeure, what happens should circumstances of force majeure arise. It is very curious.

MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Right. Yes, that is odd.

MR STAUNTON: So it does not appear on the face of this document that any event of force majeure excuses Empowering Wind from paying the rent. Where you do find force majeure is, if you turn on to the energy supply agreement, p.51, it has an effective force majeure clause. So p.51. This is the energy supply agreement.

MR STAUNTON: — cl.3.1.2, there is an obligation to pay sums, and p.60, cl.6, does have an effective force majeure clause. Now, I do not have, in the evidence, any answers to why there is an effective force majeure in the energy supply agreement but not in the lease, but that is the evidence before you.

MR JUSTICE ARNOLD: Okay.

MR STAUNTON: Now, the rent was not paid and there was a demand, forfeiture. Can you turn to p.66? There is the invoice for the rents.

Source: Transcript of the hearing of 09/01/2017.

The unwarranted demand for energy supply when any invoicing was contractually prohibited

Page 66 of Bloom’s exhibit, a mismatch of repetitious material, minus 172 pages of material information they fraudulently withheld, was not an invoice for rents at all, the first invoice referred to was an invoice for energy supply payments they were contractually prohibited from making, yet there was no mention whatsoever of the fact that the ESA is conditional, nor the fact that the Club refused the connection:

The conditional Energy Supply Agreement

The ESA was to govern the terms on which Millinder, the Generator, was to supply energy to the Club. Fundamentally, Millinder made the ESA which was completed with the Club conditional upon his “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” and “commissioning” of the wind turbine.

In absence of fulfillment of those conditions to Millinder’s satisfaction there was no “Entitlement to agreed output” (agreement by Millinder to supply power) and any “Invoicing & payment” was also contractually prohibited. The “Start Date” of the ESA is the date from which those conditions are fulfilled.

It was for that reason the foul playing referees, turned strikers, all lied, taking it in turns to score after widening the goal posts, by stating the demand was only for rent.

24 days after the Club’s barrister admitted no claims could be established their solicitor claimed over £4.1 million for rent and energy supply

There was all out evasion of the fact that the Club’s own barrister admitted on 09/01/2017 that no claims could be established because “Force Majeure has effect”, notwithstanding the fact that any agreement to supply power was conditional and that after refusing the connection, there was none and that any invoicing & payment was contractually prohibited.

These people describe themselves as lawyers and judges. Anyone can work this out, their own barrister admitted it, yet 24-days later, on 02/02/2017 the Club’s solicitor who instructed him claimed over £4.1 million of which over £4 million was for energy supply:

The judges and the Insolvency Service retained the £4.1 million claim ever since, to prevent Millinder from his democratic right as requisite majority creditor to call a meeting to replace Hannon, the corrupt Official Receiver of London who was installed as liquidator of EW to ensure Millinder was defrauded.

They don’t administer the rule of the laws of the United Kingdom, but they discriminate, violating civilian’s rights to equality before the law, whilst degrading and misrepresenting the laws they purport to administer. Vos and his conspirators remain in judicial office.

Keeping it very simple, here’s how it started, the case was proven from the outset no referee needed

Millinder wanted to construct, connect to the grid and operate a 136 metre high, 1.5 mega watt wind turbine that was to deliver power to Steve Gibson, the Tory Teesside politician’s Middlesbrough FC Stadium.

The project was to be “Europe’s first wind powered football stadium”, delivering electricity to the stadium via a private 11KV network that the Club was to take ownership of.

Millinder paid the Club £200,000 for the lease to occupy the land the turbine was to be located on, expending a further £570,000 from 15th October 2012 when the option to lease was completed, to take the project to a construction ready phase.

The connection for the wind turbine

The turbine was to connect into the Club’s adopted private network so that power could be delivered from the turbine’s substation infrastructure, to the Stadium’s infrastructure, making Middlesbrough FC entirely sustainable in terms of energy supply.

On 25th September 2012, by email, Mr Brown, lawyer for Middlesbrough FC referred to “…the need to transfer the two existing substations from the DNO to the club”. They were, at all times from September 2012 onwards aware of Northern Powergrid, the Distribution Network Operator’s (“NPG”) express requirement that the Club take ownership of their high voltage substations to create a private network the turbine would connect into:

The connection configuration was agreed and completed in open email correspondences during the option period, when it was an option, if either party became aggrieved, to negate without financial commitment.

The connection specified by NPG obligated the Club to take ownership of their high voltage dedicated substations, which the turbine was to connect into, once NPG had established a new single point of supply to the stadium. It was condition precedent to the NPG Connection Offer that the Club did so.

In an email of 4th January 2014 from Millinder to Smith, the operations manager of Middlesbrough FC, it was stated that:

“There is a non contestable cost of £43k including VAT, meaning that total Grid connection costs has gone from the £1.2m originally quoted to £324k, which is exactly where we needed to be”

“Now that we have the certainty required we will be paying the deposit required on the Grid connection to NPG on Monday and we will be wiring the fees to you at the same time”

“Once this is done we will be in a position to draw down the entire balance required for the construction project and at this point we will be paying the £200k Lease Premium”

On 17th June 2013, once those connection arrangements were finalised, the deposits were paid by Millinder to NPG and OFGEM had granted Feed in Tariff accreditation for the wind turbine so that the 20-year tariff guaranteeing a minimum payment for all energy generated by the turbine was secured, Millinder exercised the option agreement and completed the lease.

Millinder, an experienced developer of renewable energy infrastructure projects had built in Force Majeure” provisions into the lease and the Energy Supply Agreement (“ESA”), so that if there was a delay in development of the project caused by third parties or acts beyond reasonable control of the developer, the developer shall be absolved of any liability for so long as such delay continued.

3-months and 6-days into the 12-month period free of rent Millinder had done as required to have discharged the planning condition

Schedule 7 of the Lease provided for 12-months free of rent from which to commission the wind turbine. The ESA provided for 12-months free of commitment to do likewise. Commissioning means to have constructed the turbine and connected the capital equipment to the electricity grid so that the wind turbine is capable of commercial operation.

On 23rd September 2013, 96-days into the 365-days free of rent, Millinder had submitted a scheme to discharge condition 7 of the planning permission to Middlesbrough Council, the Local Planning Authority (“LPA”).

Condition 7 of the planning permission for the wind turbine required discharging before the turbine could lawfully operate. It is evidenced below by the planning officer’s own admission on 23rd September 2013 that Millinder had done as required to have discharged the condition:

Despite Mr Millinder doing as required to have discharged the planning condition, the former owners of the Airport, Peel Holdings were effectively “peeling the planning system”, hoodwinking the Council into belief that the turbine posed risk on the grounds of air safety, leading the Council to believe their story, and thus the Council failed in their duty to the Applicant to act lawfully in discharging the planning condition, even though Millinder had done as required to have discharged it.

The delay was an act caused by the LPA failing to act in accordance with planning law by discharging the planning condition when the Applicant had done as required to have discharged it.

On 10th November 2014 even the Civil Aviation Authority were telling the Council to sustain the condition to assist the Airport

Millinder lobbied with the CAA, challenging their decision on the ground that Ritchie had contradicted himself, first by stating that the CAA did not have the expertise in house to pass comment on such complex technical issues, but then advising the LPA to sustain the condition that prevented the turbine from lawful operation.

On 23rd December 2014 Millinder won the argument, resolving the delay with the Council granting planning permission

Force Majeure

The definition of Force Majeure in the Lease:

means any event or circumstance which is beyond the reasonable control of the Tenant and which results in or causes failure of the Tenant to perform any of its obligations under this Lease

Schedule 5 of the Lease “Agreements & Declarations, clause 6 of the Lease provides that:

“If either party is prevented for any period of time from performing its obligations under this Lease by reason of Force Majeure that party shall not be in breach of such obligations for so long as and to the extent that such reasons shall subsist”.

The delay from 23/09/2013 through to 23/12/2014 was Force Majeure in accordance with the definition and operative provision of the completed terms of the Lease. The clauses were essentially the same in the competed ESA.

Schedule 7 of the Lease provided for 12-months free of rent from which Millinder had to commission the wind turbine. That obligation to ensure that the turbine was commissioned within 356-days from completion of the Lease was therefore suspended. On 23/12/2014, Millinder has 296-days from which to commission the wind turbine. The first installment of rent (£15,000) was payable on 17th September 2015.

By 4th February 2015 the turbine was ready to construct

Millinder called upon NPG to issue the connection agreement to Middlesbrough FC for establishing the connection for the turbine and on 5th February 2015 the agreement was emailed to them in accordance with the Connection Offer with it’s condition precedent that the Club was to adopt their dedicated High Voltage substations so the connection to the turbine could be established.

The Club’s ransom demand for payment

On 7th March 2015, out of the blue, Robin Bloom, the former senior partner of Womble Bond Dickinson, the lawyers acting for Middlesbrough FC, who went on to become Steve Gibson’s general legal counsel had demanded on behalf of the Club, that Millinder pay them the sum of £256,269.89 for rent that was not owed and for energy supply that was not owed.

Dumbfounded by the demand, and knowing that contractually no money could possibly be owed, on 15th April 2015 Millinder offered to deposit the sum of the Club’s ransom demand in escrow to avoid their continued obstruction of the build of the turbine by failing to cooperate.

15 days later, the Club outright refused the connection

It is plainly evidenced that the option to lease was completed on the express understanding of the Club’s obligation to take ownership of their substations to form the private network the turbine would connect into.

The Club had “U-turned” after making a ransom demand for payment that anyone could establish, just by reading the contracts, could not possibly be owed.

From 30/04/2015 Force Majeure continued to absolve any obligation to pay either rent or energy supply, because the Club had prevented Millinder from performing on the rights granted. On 15th June 2015, Millinder re-affirmed that position in an email to the Club:

“After wasting our time and money by refusing to acknowledge the Force Majeure provisions within the contractual documents, you now confirm that I cannot do what is intended by the Connection Deed and the associated Connection Agreement and therefore it is not possible for me to perform on my obligations under the Lease, the Energy Supply Agreement or the Connection Deed due to MFC’s refusal to make the grid connection”

Exactly 10-day later, the Club made an unwarranted demand for rent and energy supply in that sum of £256,269.89 when neither rent or energy supply was owed. £181,269.89 was invoices for energy supply, when any “Entitlement to Agreed Output” was subject to Millinder’s “satisfaction in full” of “entering into a connection agreement” which the Club refused and in absence of any “Invoicing & payment” was contractually prohibited.

Even if the Club did not refuse the connection, they still unlawfully forfeited the Lease

On 19th August 2015, 29-days prior to the first installment of rent in the sum of £15,000 becoming payable (had they not refused the connection), the Club unlawfully forfeited the Lease for the wind turbine, defrauding Millinder of the £200,000 he paid them whilst throwing away £570,000 of his money invested in the project, leaving him with no turbine, and over 4-years development resource down the drain.

It was proven from the outset that the Club had unlawfully forfeited the Lease. This is where the corrupt English apparatus of public sector corruption came into play to effectually, “step into the shoes of the Club” to ensure that Millinder was denied justice and that the Club was prevented from being sued.

After vandalising it’s sole trading interest, the Club falsely claimed to be creditor and the court assisted them by failing to apply the law

On 19th September 2016, whilst Millinder was making preparations to file a claim for unlawful forfeiture of the Lease against the Club, the Club appeared on the scene falsely claiming to be a creditor of Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW”), Millinder’s sole purpose company in that sum of £256,269.89.

There was a winding up petition which had been adjourned to allow Millinder to enter a company voluntary arrangement with 3 of the Company’s creditors who would have all been paid had the Club not vandalised the project. Out of the blue, the Club had instructed Mr Staunton, counsel, to appear on the day of the CVA hearing, falsely representing that the Club was creditor in the sum of £256,269.89. The Court, the Club and their counsel knew that the Club was not , and could not possibly be a creditor, they were using insolvency and their false representation to place the company into insolvency to prevent justice being served.

Wilful failure of the corrupt English judges to apply the law

Essentially, the judges had “stepped into the shoes of the fraudsters” and by doing so, Millinder was, from the start of the proceedings devoid of his right to equality before the law.

Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 is the mandatory law in set off and the rule of law which is designed to protect the interests of creditors of insolvent companies:

14.25.—(1) This rule applies in a winding up where, before the company goes into liquidation, there have been mutual dealings between the company and a creditor of the company proving or claiming to prove for a debt in the liquidation.

(2) An account must be taken of what is due from the company and the creditor to each other in respect of their mutual dealings and the sums due from the one must be set off against the sums due from the other.

(3) If there is a balance owed to the creditor then only that balance is provable in the winding up.

(4) If there is a balance owed to the company then that must be paid to the liquidator as part of the assets.

(5) However if all or part of the balance owed to the company results from a contingent or prospective debt owed by the creditor then the balance (or that part of it which results from the contingent or prospective debt) must be paid in full (without being discounted under rule 14.44) if and when that debt becomes due and payable.

The balance owed to the Company exceeds £9.2 million plus standard interest accruing from the date of unlawful forfeiture of the Lease, yet there was never anything owed to the Club by the Company. The balance was always to have been paid to the Company, but the corrupt government, the Insolvency Service and the Court colluded to ensure that Millinder was defrauded of that very substantial asset.

The corrupt English judiciary defy the law and work to assist fraudsters and imposters purporting to be lawyers and judges in using the courts to defraud. Equality before the law does not exist, it was all about providing impunity to Steve Gibson OBE to ensure that he and his firm was provided impunity and was prevented from being sued, whilst Millinder was subject to years of human rights abuse in the hands of the corrupt politically controlled judiciary.

Millinder has since been branded a “vexatious litigant” and hoodwinked of his right of access to justice for having the audacity to seek to assert his rights granted in law and to have made lawful attempts to remove the fraud by false representation they used to defraud him of that multi million damages claim. The corrupt establishment has been using void restraint orders to conceal their own judicial fraud.

The Teesside Gazette, Middlesbrough FC’s propaganda machine, branded Millinder a “Timewasting businessman“, but after reading this article, ask yourself, who could build a wind turbine after the Club refused the connection?

It’s all about moving the goal posts and foul play to ensure that the Tory home team and their affiliates always win. This article proves that in the UK, no business or individual is safe, for the impartiality of justice is compromised, the laws are ridden roughshod over and the referees have become the strikers, injustice prevails.