After a 5-year solid investigation into allegations of serious judicial and pollical corruption across multiple cases alleging insolvency based fraud, Intelligence UK Investigations has taken Government to Court in the public interest, and we urgently need your support.
Our fight is against inequality and discrimination, totalitarianism, two-tier justice and the basic right that everyone must be afforded, equality before the law.
English Constitution Movement’s campaign is funding the action in the public interest to uphold the fundamentally crucial rule that ‘no one is above the law‘ and that everyone has ‘the right to a fair and impartial trial according to the laws of the land‘, and that ‘where there’s wrongdoing, there must be remedy‘.
Our case and why we’ve taken government to court
Mr Millinder, the obvious victim of fraud, was essentially bogusly jailed for 15-months for alleged civil contempt for breaching a purported ‘all proceedings civil restraint order’ imposed against him which, after our conclusive investigation, we find to have been made improperly on a number of grounds.
Everyone must be able to rely on the terms of a completed contract to gain remedy for breach of contract. In our common law jurisdiction, ‘where there’s wrongdoing, there must be remedy’.
Similarly, everyone must be able to rely on the rights and protections afforded by the statutory laws of the land, and in this unique and high profile case against multiple government branches, including the Lord Chancellor head of the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (H.M.C.T.S) and the Insolvency Service and Official Receiver’s Office, it is prima facie proven on simple and conclusive grounds, that this Government have made justice and law ‘selective’, defeating the English rule of law and, potentially setting a dangerous precedent, that avoidance of the law can be brought or pre-determined, making a sect ‘above the law‘.
Our founding partner, Martin Walsh, an international capital markets investor and serial entrepreneur is a personal friend of Mr Millinder, a renewable energy developer who was, it is alleged, defrauded after Middlesbrough Football Club defeated the contractual purpose of the lease, energy supply agreement and connection deed, when the purpose was to have ‘constructed, connected to the grid and operated‘ what was to be ‘Europe’s fist wind powered football stadium’.
This Firm acquired the case on 25 March 2022, and there has been wilful and obvious evasion of the preliminary issue by judges of the senior courts ever since we made our first application in the Administrative Court on the important point of law encompassed in it.
The crucial right that one must have to rely on the rights and protections afforded by the statutory laws of the land
In the case of both EW and then from 12 February 2018, Earth Energy Investments LLP’s (‘EEI” – parent of EW) corporate insolvencies, there are pre-insolvency claims arising through direct mutual dealings between MFC and EW and EEI and MFC.
The law determines that the statutory rule was engaged on those corresponding cross claims between 15 August 2016 and 19 September 2016 in relation to EW, and between 12 February 2018 and 28 March 2018 in respect of EEI.
The allegedly corrupt judicial and central government administration ‘bypassed the law’
Essentially what happened was that the judges and the Official Receivers acting as liquidators, decided that law does not apply to Mr Millinder or his companies (in our view), so they bypassed the mandatory rule to deprive Mr Millinder and both his companies of the right of insolvency set off, a riht that any other creditor in an identical position would have been afforded.
Taking away one’s right of access to justice to conceal fraud and corruption
Mr Millinder, the injured party was branded a ‘vexatious litigant’ after the judges failed to judge after failing to administer the mandatory law of due process (14.25 Insolvency Rules 2016) when the rule was engaged in both separate sets of 2016 (EW) and then 2018 (EEI) insolvency proceedings when both EW and EEI have cross claims that extinguished the alleged claims brought by MFC.
In 2022, Mr Millinder was sentenced to 15-months in jail for allegedly breaching an ‘all proceedings restraint order’ and we ask, what court has jurisdiction to conceal fraud and wrongdoing after such obvious failure by the judicial officers, to have administered the law and justice?
It was apparent to this firm, that under the current regime, it was no longer a case of ‘where there’s wrongdoing, there must be remedy’, or justice delayed is justice denied, by a case of ‘justice subject to status’ wrongdoing concealed, and justice denied.
We took the Government and H.M.C.T.S to Court, along with the Lord Chancellor responsible for the judges, who, in our view, in this case, so clearly and obviously ‘fraudulently failed to judge‘.
The contractual function and important legal principle of an option to lease
Keeping it as simple as it really is, the upshot is that without a connection, the turbine cannot operate.
The recital to the ‘option to lease‘ agreement of 15 June 2012 when Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (‘EW‘) completed the option to lease agreement with Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd (‘MFC‘), with its purpose to;
“Construct, connect to the grid and operate a 90M high wind turbine at the Property“
it was EW’s express requirement that the pre-commencement planning conditions for the planning permission were discharged, and that EW and MFC procure a connection to the grid, and explore and finalise the connection method, costs and timeframe for establishing a connection, prior to exercising the option agreement and completing the lease.
It is evident that the EW pre-requisite requirements were implemented between 25 September 2012 – 4 January 2013 when EW completed the ‘Connection Offer’ with Northern Powergrid (Northeast) Ltd, the Distribution Network Operator who, just prior to issuing the Connection Offer, once again expressly confirmed this in writing to EW and MFC, including their legal advisors.
We recite below the open email from Mr Ryan, lead design engineer at Northern Powergrid of 19 November 2012 at 15.44PM:
“The connection arrangement will be similar to that discussed earlier with the two existing substations being disconnected from our system and transferred to the clubs ownership and a new single HV point of supply established”
On 4 January 2013 the Connection Offer was completed, the deposits were paid by EW to Northern Powergrid and the connection arrangement was finalised.
On 17 June 2013 exercised the option and completed the lease on payment of its £200,000 lease premium.
A completed collateral contract affirming the ‘connection arrangement’
The side-agreement express requirement of the ‘Connection Arrangements’ was a completed collateral contract by way of completion of the 26-year lease on 17 June 2013.
Obvious contractual wrongdoing by MFC
In an email from MFC’s General Legal Counsel, Mr Bloom, who was aware that the connection arrangement was completed by 4 January 2013, said this:
“it has never been our intention to own the high voltage side of the transformers in our substations. We currently own and maintain the low voltage side. The intent of the various agreements maintained this arrangement save for Empowering Wind taking over ownership of the high voltage side from NPG and becoming the energy supplier to MFC. There has never been an intention or agreed plan for MFC to take on this added accountability. This is something that you have introduced and has been the reason why Mark Ellis has persistently asked for a meeting involving your electrical contractors and our consultants to establish the exact configuration. We believe that in order for progress to be made an alternative configuration must be established in which the turbine operator is accountable for the energy supply including the fallback of supply from the grid when necessary“
The purpose of a option agreement is for the parties to independently investigate the technical and commercial considerations, and if either party becomes dissatisfied with what is being proposed, the aggrieved party can negate without commitment.
However, if the technical and or commercial arrangements being implemented are completed during the option period, and the parties then complete the lease based on what was put forward during that period, then those side agreements encompass the lease and associated deeds.
If the Claimant did not litigate then in truth no business or individual in the UK is ever economically secure, for if justice was not done in this case, then the precedent is established that, ‘where there is wrongdoing, remedy is denied’ and that nobody can rely on the courts to do justice based on the terms of a contract of the statutory framework.
Help us to help you, scroll to the bottom of the page and click our banner donating what you can afford to help us in our collective fight for justice, in conjunction with English Constitution Movement.
