Lord Justice Flaux (FAUX CHANCELLOR – HIGH COURT) – EXPOSED

Lord Justice Flaux, the Chancellor of the High Court is exposed on a 6 minute recorded call where the Chancery High Court admits being ordered by ‘the Chancellor‘ ‘not to process‘ the claimant’s applications of 21 February 2024 and 11 March 2024 to cover up underlying fraud that has been covered up by corrupt judges underneath him.

Those applications were already issued and served on the defendants. The judges defend it all for them!

Ignoring the law, the authorities of the highest courts of the land, bury evidence in the sand. That’s what the Chancellor, and those above and underneath in the High Court of Injustice of England & Wales are proven to have done. Cards on the table, we started off with 21, now the Chancellor (22) has fallen into line. Was he acting under orders of 21 of 21, the Master of the Rolls? Is that why 23 of 21, the Lady Chief Justice has done the same – Together, they defeated the rule of law, judicial independence and equality.

– EXPOSING DESTRUCTION OF THE RULE OF LAW & HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIVE TIME –

FLAUX CHANCELLOR CAME IN TO COVER FOR FANNY-THE-COURT & MILES-OUT (of jurisdiction) – NONE OF THEM HAD JURISDICTION TO DO IT.

The Chancellor of the High Court in London, Sir Julian Martin Flaux, has demonstrated to us all, the English rule of law, equality, natural justice and even the mandatory law of due process applies to some, but not others.

Lord Justice Flaux, or FAUX (fake), that is the question? A case of ‘justice, subject to status‘, not what you know, or how good your evidence is, but who you know and which side of the fence you sit.

The primary function of courts and the judiciary is to protect individual rights, maintain law and order, and promote justice and fairness in society. This short article and the evidence we reveal shows that the corrupt English establishment have defeated it all.

Our 4-year investigation into English medieval style corruption cronyism, Operation Blackjack, reveals that under this tyrannical dictatorship at the top of the justice system, a network of taxpayer funded criminal racketeers operate, no business or individual is safe.

One cannot rely on the courts to act independently, nor the terms of a contract and statutory law to gain restitution. The global reputation, economy, rule of law, human rights and democracy is being attacked by a lawless administration who make themselves and members of their network ‘above the law’. Anyone who exposes or challenges the regime is penalised.

We expose the rot of the English kleptocratic government, from the top down, those who have infiltrated all walks of public life, recruiting only those they know will engage on their terms, maintaining secrecy, concealment, following orders whether lawful, morally correct, or otherwise.

There is no judicial diversity in the UK, a massive contributing factor to the demise of the rule of law, independence, and the systemic corruption of justice.

The Chancellor of the High Court Sir Julian Flaux defeated the ends of justice (perverting, we allege)

Deuda Ltd was advised by our agents to record its call on Friday 22 March 2024 between the Chancery Judges Listing clerks of the High Court Chancery Division in the Rolls Building on Fetter Lane, in the City of London.

Court clerks reveal they were instructed by the Chancellor, Lord Justice Julian Flaux, ‘not to process‘ Deuda’s applications which were already issued, sealed and served on the two defendants.

The defendants in Deuda’s case, the Official Receiver of London, who has committed criminal offences that they have covered up, and Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company [1986] Ltd, the Club owned by ‘Mr Teesside‘, Steve Gibson OBE, the allegedly corrupt Tory politician, didn’t even need to do anything in defence, the judicial kleptocracy covered it all up for them!

There’s a massive stench of corruption drifting from the North, right into the belly of the beast in the heart of the City of London. The 7 minute, 49-second video of the actual recording on Friday reveals all.

There’s no independence, neither of courts and judges, nor police.

The preliminary issue in the case

It is alleged that the corrupt judiciary colluded with the Insolvency Service, installing Anthony Hannon, the Official Receiver, acting as liquidator of both Mr Millinder’s sole purpose companies Empowering Wind MFC Ltd (“EW“) and its parent investment company, Earth Energy Investments LLP (“EEI“), to defraud creditors and to prevent justice being served on Middlesbrough FC in doing so.

Cronies being made above the law?

The preliminary issue is that no money was contractually owed to Middlesborough FC when they demanded £256,269.89 on 25 June 2015 after “U-turning” and preventing EW and EEI from performing on the rights granted under the 26-year lease, which was to ‘construct, connect to the grid, and operate’ the wind turbine.

On 19 August 2015, the Club fraudulently forfeited the lease based on their blackmail. No money was owed then, and no money has been owed ever since.

The mandatory law of due process

The long-established statutory set off provisions conferred in Section 323 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (bankruptcy) and in Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016 date back to the statutes of Queen Anne. Insolvency set off rights are mandatory, and are widely recognised important parts of the insolvency code in most countries worldwide.

In Stein v Blake [1995] UKHL 11, it was finally determined by the House of Lords, now the Supreme Court that the effective date of the set-off was the date upon which the insolvency commenced.

Accordingly, where the debt of the insolvent is a contingent debt, then the debt must be valued at that date for the set-off to be given effect.

Paragraph 5 of the judgment sets out when set off is to be applied in bankruptcy / insolvency law generally:

5. Taking the account under section 323
Bankruptcy set-off therefore requires an account to be taken of liabilities which, at the time of
bankruptcy, may be due but not yet payable or may be unascertained in amount or subject to
contingency. Nevertheless the law says that the account shall be deemed to have been taken and the sums due from one party set off against the other as at the date of the bankruptcy.

At paragraph 7 of the judgment:

7. The occasion for taking the account
In what circumstances must the account be taken? The language of section 323(2) suggests an image of the trustee and creditor sitting down together perhaps before a judge, and debating how the balance between them should be calculated. But the taking of the account really means no more than the calculation of the balance due in accordance with the principles of insolvency law. An obvious occasion for making this calculation will be the lodging of a proof by a creditor against whom the bankrupt had a cross- claim.

It was finally determined that the occasion for setting off (both bankruptcy and corporate
insolvency), is when a creditor, or one claiming to prove, claims for an alleged debt against the
insolvent (company or individual). That duty in this case pinpointed to two critical dates from
which the fiduciary duty to have done so occurred:

On 15 August 2016 when Middlesbrough FC fictitiously sought to prove the sum of their blackmail; £256,269.89, their claim was to have been set off against EW’s, claim, quantified with a high degree of certainty, exceeding £10 million.

On 12 February 2018, the Club sought to fictitiously prove £25,000 in a purported winding up petition against EEI. Their purported claim was to have been set off against the EEI liquidated sum of the statutory demand served on them with the assignment on 6 January 2017, in the sum of £669,094.75 of which £139,094.75 is accrued interest from the date the assignment was served.

In the case of EEI, its pre-liquidation direct mutual dealing with Middlesbrough FC occurred on 29
June 2015 when it was assigned the investment made by Mr Millinder in EW, including the £200,000
lease premium paid to the Club and all the development capital to it.

Acting in conspiracy to defraud the defendants bypassed the mandatory law of due process

In Stein v Blake, the House of Lords affirmed that insolvency set off affects the substantive rights of the parties. At paragraph 4, Lord Hoffmann said this:

“Bankruptcy set-off, on the other hand affects the substantive rights of the parties by enabling the bankrupt s creditor to use his indebtedness to the bankrupt as a form of security. Instead of having to prove with other creditors for the whole of his debt in the bankruptcy he can set off pound for pound what he owes the bankrupt and prove for or pay only the balance. So in Forster v. Wilson (1843) 12 M. & W. 191, 204 Parke B. said that the purpose of insolvency set-off was ” … to do substantial justice between the parties …. ” Although it is often said that the justice of the rule is obvious, it is worth noticing that it is by no means universal. (Wood, on English and International Set-Off (1989), paras. 24-49 to 24-56. It has however been part of the English law of bankruptcy since at least the time of the first Queen Elizabeth. (op. cit., para. 7-26.)”

Between 15 August 2016 when the club sought to prove their fictitious claim, the blackmail deployed to forfeit the lease, a claim arising through direct mutual dealings, and 19 September 2016, the former Chief Registrar of the Insolvency & Companies Court was under a fiduciary duty to have administered the statutory set off rights granted to EW creditors under rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016.

Having the Club’s false claim in his possession on 15 August 2016, and EW’s claim exceeding £10 million in his possession in hard copy on 10 September 2016, it is alleged that Baister acted without jurisdiction, fraudulently abusing his position to defraud EW creditors by bypassing the mandatory law of due process to obtain pecuniary interest by deception.

The law, Rule 14.25 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, determined that he had no jurisdiction to do it, because firstly, the Club never had a claim to prove, and secondly, that their fictitious claim was to be set off as per the mandatory provisions in Rule 14.25(1), 14.25(2) and 14.25(3), prior to making the insolvency order against EW.

Acting in fraudulent abuse of his position, Baister made the insolvency order against EW in absence of law.

Between 12 February 2018 and 28 March 2018, the politically controlled Court, working to assist the defendants, did precisely the same again, with EEI’s claim against MFC and the £25,000 fictitious claim which was, on 21 March 2018 listed for a hearing by Nugee J, to set it aside.

A purported debt, which is subject to challenge by a High Court Judge, is not, and cannot possibly be a liquidated sum immediately due and payable, yet, in absence of law, in absence of debt, without jurisdiction, EEI was once again wound up.

Is dishonestly depriving a person of a right of which they are entitled, the mandatory law of due process, to make a gain and to cause loss, not fraud?

Misdealing? Conspiracy? Yet there was no single reference to rule 14.25 of insolvency set off anywhere within any of their ‘PURPORTED DETERMINATIONS’ – THEY CONCEALED THE FRAUD AT THE HEART OF IT.

IT IS A FRAUD TO CONCEAL FRAUD, A PERVERSION, IS IT NOT?

They have been abusing insolvency statutory legislation to defraud creditors through fraudulent maladministration of law whilst deliberately allowing their independence to be compromised.

No judge has jurisdiction to make any order in absence of administering the law of due process.

The English kleptocratic judiciary and Secretary of State for justice has been invited for comment.

Comments please.