THE ENGLISH COURT HAS BEEN USED AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR FRAUD AGAINST BUMP AND TO COVER UP EVIDENCE OF PERJURY, RACISM, WITNESS SUICIDE IN A £55 MILLION PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY CLAIM AGAINST LAW FIRMS WIGGIN LLP AND FOX WILLIAMS

Two judges, Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith, were put in within short notice of scheduled hearings and both judges’ conduct was of complete bias against BUMP and its Black founder and openly in favour of the insurance companies and their clients Wiggin LLP and Fox Williams.
The English court has been used as an instrument for fraud and to cover up perjury, racial discrimination, and Wiggin LLP’s witness suicide and to protect the interests of the law firms and their insurance companies Aviva Insurance Limited, HDI global Specialty Limited, and Sompo International.
Deputy Master Linwood was brought in to replace Master McQuail who was priorly assigned to hear BUMP's case in the lower court on 16 February 2024.
Two days before the hearing that was scheduled on 28 February 2024 before Judge Justice Mellor for BUMP's application for permission to appeal Deputy Master Linwood’s decision, Mr Justice Richard Smith was brought in to replace Mr Justice Mellor, and during the hearing Mr Richard Smith purposely worked to suppress clear and indisputable evidence of perjury by Caroline Kean, who is partner and co-founder Wiggin LLP, and evidence of perjury by Wiggin LLP’s key Witness Jock Millgårdh. Mr Justice Richard Smith purposely sought to misinterpret the perjury evidence and twist the facts before him to fit a certain fraudulent narrative which would give him a false reason to deny permission to appeal.
BUMP's founder Derek Banner was litigating in person to represent his company, and from the very moment Banner opened his mouth and started to plead BUMP's case Mr Richard Smith interrupted him, and he continued to interrupt him throughout the hearing to a point where Banner felt he no longer had any reason for being at the hearing and he threatened to leave; because it was obvious and apparent to him that Mr Justice Richard Smith had already made up his mind in favour of the insurance companies and the Defendants.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2003 set out standards of ethical conduct for judges, and both Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith deliberately abused their position and breached each of those set out principles:
1. Judicial independence, a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial.
2. Impartiality, (Bias and the Appearance of bias), essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.
3. Integrity, essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.
4. Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, essential to the performance of all of the activities of the judge.
5. Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts, essential to the due performance of the judicial office.
6. Competence and diligence, prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.
JUDGES’ COVER UP OF PERJURY BY WIGGIN’S WITNESS JOCK MILLGARDH IN 2016 AND COVER UP OF DEPUTY MASTER LINWOOD’S FALSE STATEMENT IN COURT’S DECISION OF 23 FEBRUARY 2024
Banner remained at the hearing nonetheless after he threatened to leave and continued his pleading before Mr Justice Richard Smith.
He pleaded the fact that there is a false statement in the court’s decision of 23 February 2024 by Deputy Master Linwood at paragraph 85 in which Deputy Master Linwood concludes, “There is no evidence before me which gets even near supporting these very serious allegations against Mr Millgårdh, Ms Kean, and others”, and he therefore put before Mr Richard Smith a copy of page 2 of EXHIBIT DB which contains following perjury evidence which he had also put before Deputy Master Linwood at the strike out application hearing of 16 February 2024:
1. Witness statement of 30 September 2016 by Wiggin’s witness Mr Millgardh in which Mr Millgardh falsely stated that Banner did not pitch to him his gameshow idea of “Minute Winner” at the meeting which Banner held with Mr Millgardh and his colleague Mattias Olsson in Stockholm on 11 November 2005, and Mr Millgardh falsely testified "the conversation" was ONLY about one idea "Celebrity Birthday”,
2. Witness statement of 18 December 2015 by Mr MASSIMO LOCCI who was also present at that meeting in Stockholm and who testified under oath that Banner pitched a total of nine TV show ideas to Mr Millgardh and Mr Olsson, including the gameshow “Minute Winner” with the catchphrase “You got one minute to win it”. And Banner also pointed out to Mr Justice Richard Smith the fact that the same catchphrase was repeatedly used by the TV Host in Mr Millgardh and NBC’s produced “Minute To Win It” shows in 2010, “You got a minute to win it”, (See here https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5hfal9),
3. Email of 5 September 2011 in which Mr Millgardh’s CEO ESTELLE BODEN (aka von Schinkel), after having consulted with Mr Millgardh and Mr Olsson, mentioned several TV show ideas which Mr Millgardh himself and Mr Olsson recalled Banner pitched to them at that meeting, however oddly they did not mention “Celebrity Birthday” in that email despite the fact that Mr Millgardh alleged in his written witness statement to the court in 2016 that “Celebrity Birthday” was the only idea which the “conversation” was about, and this is further proof of inconsistencies in Mr Millgardh's witness statement and also proof that Mr Millgardh was not being truthful and he perjured himself. (See attached evidence),
4. A copy of an “NDA” which had
  
  - the title “Minute Winner”
  
  - date of the pitch meeting with Mr Millgardh, 11 November 2005
  
  - Mr Millgardh’s full name, and
  
  - Mr Millgardh’s company name "Friday TV" and its full address (which was also the address of the pitch meeting in Stockholm).
The NDA was further proof that “Minute Winner” was among the nine ideas Banner pitched to Mr Millgardh and Mr Olsson at their meeting in Stockholm and therefore Mr Millgardh perjured himself in his written witness statement put before judge Deputy Master Linwood on 16 February 2024.
However Deputy Master Linwood falsely and dishonestly concludes in his court’s decision of 23 February 2024 that, “There is no evidence before me which gets even near supporting these very serious allegations against Mr Millgårdh”.
JUDGES’ SUPPRESSION OF NDA EVIDENCE AND WITNESS STATEMENT OF MASSIMO LOCCI
Why did both judges, Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Richard Smith, ignore the witness statement of 18 December 2015 by Mr Locci who was present at that meeting in Stockholm between Banner and Mr Millgardh and Mr Olsson? There is no mention whatsoever of Mr Locci’s witness statement in either of the two judge’s decision.
Why did both judges ignore the “Minute Winner NDA” evidence Banner put before them and which is proof “Minute Winner” was among the TV show ideas Banner pitched to Mr Millgardh and Mr Olsson?
JUDGE’S FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AND BIAS
Why did both judges ignore the following which Banner also put before them on page 11 paragraphs 50 - 52 of his witness statement of 18 December 2023 with regard to an email of 21 November 2005 which Banner had sent to Mr Millgardh ten days after their meeting in Stockholm, and Banner wrote the following in his witness statement: “A week after the meeting I sent Mr Millgardh an email with other new projects. I mistakenly included in that same email the format “Minute Winner” which I already pitched to him and his colleague at the meeting in Stockholm. I also mistakenly included “Colonies” in the same email message. My mistake and the email message were later fraudulently misrepresented and used in the Swedish proceedings by Friday TV’s Swedish lawyers at Foretagsjuridik Nord Och Co in their defence against the case I filed against Friday TV in 2012. Wiggin also used the same argument in their statements in 2016 proceedings and used the same email message as evidence. Mr Wyles has also now used the same fraudulent misrepresentation and same email evidence on page 3 of his written witness statement of 27 November 2023 he has submitted to this case. (See on pages 100 - 120 of my EXHIBIT DB)”?
In his decision of 28 June 2024 Mr Justice Richard Smith has ignored Banner's witness statement in which Banner provided his above explanation that the mistake he made in his email to Mr Millgardh ten days after their meeting in Stockholm was fraudulently misrepresented by Friday TV’s lawyers who saw the email evidence as an opportunity to advise Mr Millgardh to deny everything and to falsely allege in his written witness statement to the courts in Sweden and in England that Banner never pitched his gameshow idea of “Minute Winner” to Mr Millgardh at their meeting in Stockholm but instead the “Minute Winner gameshow idea was sent unsolicited to Mr Millgardh ten days after the meeting”, and on this false basis Mr Justice Richard Smith has sided with Wiggin’s insurers’ counsels’ fraudulent misrepresentation and has dismissed Banner's application for permission to appeal Deputy Master Linwood’s wrong decision of 23 February 2024.
The above is further proof of Mr Justice Richard Smith’s bias against Banner and against the evidence Banner put before him, also specifically for the fact that
1. Mr Justice Richard Smith chose to ignore the witness statement by Mr Locci who was present at Banner's meeting in Stockholm with Mr Millgardh and who testified that Banner pitched nine ideas to Mr Millgardh including “Minute Winner” with the catchphrase “You got one minute to win it”,
2. he chose to ignore the “Minute Winner NDA” evidence which shows the date and address of the meeting, including Millgardh’s name
3. he chose to ignore the inconsistencies in Mr Millgardh’s witness statement under oath alleging that the meeting was only about one idea, “Celebrity Birthday” but in their own email to Banner on 5 September 2011 Millgardh and his CEO have cited several TV show ideas which they recalled Banner pitched at the meeting with Millgardh, and they did not even mention “Celebrity Birthday” in that email despite the fact that Millgardh alleged it was the only idea he discussed with Banner at that meeting, and the reason for this is that Millgardh knew that they breached the agreement which they had signed with Banner on “Celebrity Birthday” in 2006 after the pitch meeting in Stockholm and according to which Mr Millgardh and his company Friday TV were to pay Banner's company 35% of sales of the “Celebrity Birthday” format worldwide; and copyright was never an issue when they signed that agreement with Banner.
All of the above should have satisfied Mr Justice Richard Smith to conclude, based on the facts and evidence before him, that there is clear evidence of inconsistencies and perjury in the witness statement of Jock Millgardh.
JUDGES’ COVER UP OF MR MILLGARDH’S SUICIDE
Why haven’t any of the two judges, Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith, questioned law firm Wiggin LLP and its partner and co-founder Caroline Kean with regard to their key witness's suicide after Mr Millgardh’s perjury in English court in 2016?
Millgardh committed suicide after his false witness statement was submitted to the court by Wiggin and Caroline Kean to support their strike out application in 2016, and Wiggin was fully aware of the fact that Millgardh was never in possession of any evidence for the gameshow "Minute To Win It" to show that he was the true creator of that gameshow which he sold to NBCUniversal in 2009 and which they exploited in fifty countries, such as any evidence of an original document, synopsis, or draft document with the title “Minute To Win It” to prove to the court in England or in Sweden that Millgardh and Mr Olsson developed the gameshow “Minute To Win It” independently of Banner's pitch to them at their meeting in 2005 in Stockholm, with additional fourteen page document titled “Read Your Fortune” which Banner developed in 2004 one year after he created “Minute Winner” and which he sent to Mr Millgardh in 2007 as a spinoff version of “Minute Winner”. Mr Millgardh and Mr Olsson used both “Minute Winner” and “Read Your Fortune” documents and developed “Minute To Win It” without first entering into any agreement with Banner, and they both were “Executive Producers” of “Minute To Win It” for NBC in 2010 after they sold the gameshow to NBCUniversal. (See the facts published on BUMP's website https://bump-productions.com/minute-to-win-it, which were also in the copy of Annex1 Banner put before Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith).
Why did Mr Justice Richard Smith try to convince Banner at the hearing of 28 June 2024 that it is “irrelevant” to ask Wiggin to produce any evidence for “Minute to win it” when he knew that hundreds of millions of pounds of unjust enrichment have been earned by Wiggin’s clients based on an intellectual property which Wiggin’s clients and Millgardh have no evidence of whatsoever? Millgardh's lack of evidence of an original document for "Minute To Win It" means Millgardh sold to NBCUniversal a stolen intellectual property, and his lawyers at Wiggin LLP and Swedish law firm Foretagjuridik Nord & Co (now called Kanter law firm) have been fully aware of this fact since the beginning, however they advised Millgardh to deny everything and to lie to the court. Millgardh would later take his own life.
Banner pleaded to Mr Justice Richard Smith the fact that Millgardh, Olsson, their Legal counsel in Sweden Eva-Lotta Almkvist, and their CEO and co-founder of Friday TV Estelle Bodén, all resigned soon after they got caught exploiting “Minute To Win It” and soon after evidence of concealed contracts with BUMP with regard to Banner's “Minute Winner” and “Minute To Win It” were discovered from their server called "Mutter Media".
JUDGES’ COVER UP OF EVIDENCE OF CONCEALED CONTRACTS AND PERJURY BY CAROLINE KEAN OF WIGGIN LLP IN 2023
The two Internet Links which Banner discovered in Swedish language in September 2011 from Mr Millgardh and their Legal counsel’s server show without a doubt that contract files were established between Millgardh’s company Friday TV and Banner's company BUMP soon after Banner contacted Millgardh with regard to their infringement, and they informed Banner that their / Metronome’s Legal counsel Eva-lotta Almkvist will “get back to you”:

file:///W://Metronome / Contract / Contract Documents / Friday TV / MINUTE WINNER - You got one Minute To Win It

file:///W://Metronome / Contract / Contract Documents / BUMP / MINUTE WINNER - MINUTE TO WIN IT - Minute To Win It.
However despite the discovered links, Caroline Kean of Wiggin LLP categorically denied that contracts were ever created and she stated the following in her witness statement of 30 November 2023 which Wiggin’s insurers’ counsels submitted to the court in support of their strike out application: “No contract did exist (for those were my instructions)”.
Banner pleaded to both Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith the fact that Caroline Kean was fully aware that her above statement, “No contract did exist (for those were my instructions)”, was FALSE and constitutes PERJURY UNDER PERJURY ACT 1911, because Caroline Kean knew when she made her statement that her law firm Wiggin LLP was not retained or instructed in 2011 when those contracts were created between Millgardh’s company Friday TV and Banner's company BUMP, and Ms Kean confirms this fact herself on page 5 paragraph 18 of her witness statement and she wrote: “Wiggin was first instructed in connection with the proceedings in 2016”, which is five years after the contracts were already created. And there was no court proceedings in 2011 and therefore Millgardh and Friday TV had no reason to retain or instruct Caroline Kean and her law firm to act for Friday TV.
Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith never asked Wiggin’s insurers' counsels: how could Ms Kean have given instructions to Friday TV in 2011 not to create contracts with BUMP when Ms Kean and Wiggin were never retained to act for Friday TV in 2011 and were first instructed in 2016?
JUDGES’ COVER UP OF CAROLINE KEAN’S PERJURY AND DEPUTY MASTER LINWOOD’S FALSE STATEMENT IN COURT’S DECISION
In spite of the clear and irrefutable evidence of Caroline Kean’s perjury in her witness statement issued under oath to the court in 2023, Deputy Master Linwood falsely concludes at Paragraph 85 of his court’s decision of 23 February 2024 that “There is no evidence before me which gets even near supporting these very serious allegations against Caroline Kean”.
Deputy Master Linwood’s false statement in a court’s decision is ground for appeal and reversal of that decision, however during the hearing of 28 June 2024 of Banner's application for permission to appeal Deputy Master Linwood’s wrong decision, Mr Justice Richard Smith tried long and hard to convince Banner that there is, “in his view”, another way to interpret Deputy Master Linwood’s false statement, and this was obvious to Banner and to everyone sitting in that courtroom that Mr Justice Richard Smith was looking for a way to twist the facts so he could create a fake reason to dismiss Banner's application for permission to appeal.
There is no other way one should look at the false statement by Caroline Kean, who is a routined and an experienced litigator, than for what it is; “No contract did exist” (for those were my instructions)” is perjury beyond a reasonable doubt, because there was no court proceedings at all in 2011 when contracts were created between Friday TV and BUMP and Caroline Kean was never instructed in any way to act for Friday TV in 2011. And when a judge, Mr Justice Richard Smith, tries to cover up the evidence by attempting to fraudulently misrepresent Caroline Kean’s statement and twist the facts in order to create a false reason not to grant permission to appeal, it is a severe breach of ethics, breach of impartiality, and abuse of his position as judge.
JUDGES’ COVER UP OF EVIDENCE OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Banner put before Deputy Master Linwood and before Mr Justice Smith page 32 of Index 2 of his Exhibit DB with evidence of an article from the Swedish press in which Millgardh’s CEO Estelle Bodén stated the following: "Finding an idea and presenting it to a channel can take anything from a few hours to a few weeks, but even if you pitched the idea, it continues to develop all the time. Ideas can also come from outside (from external party). Caroline af Ugglas came to us and told us that her choir practice could be suitable for television. So Jock and Mattias made a TV show based on that idea”.
Millgardh and his company Friday TV paid millions of Swedish krona to the choir leader, “Caroline Af Ugglas”, on the basis of her oral idea of her choir practice to Friday TV after Millgardh and his colleague Mattias Olsson developed and sold that idea to NBCUniversal, and there was never any dispute whatsoever even when an oral idea is not protected by copyright.
Why is it not discrimination and racism when a white person is paid millions in royalties on the basis of an oral idea with no dispute when an oral idea is not protected by copyright, but a black person with two successful TV shows described on paper, “Luxury Trap” and “Minute To Win It”, has now spent nearly fifteen years asking to get paid for his work?
1. He is forced to file court claims and to pursue litigations only to be accused of abusing the court process,
2. He receives threats from Friday TV’s lawyers who sent people to “closely monitor all his activities” and put him and his family under surveillance
3. Copyright is used as false pretext to defraud him of millions in royalties?
Why is there no investigation of such a severe breach of lawyers’ ethics and violation of Banner's private life despite the evidence of surveillance of him and his family which he put before the court and before both Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith?
JUDGES’ COVER UP OF FOX WILLIAMS’ FRAUD, DECEIT, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT
Banner retained English Law firm Fox Williams in 2015 and a retainer agreement was signed in which Fox Williams agreed to take instructions from Banner, and Fox Williams
1. admitted that it received a number of documents from Banner to put before the judge and to fully plead BUMP's case,
2. informed Banner that it provided all Banner's documents to the litigation funding firm Augusta Ventures and on the basis of “all the documents” it successfully obtained funds to pay own salaries and to cover own costs,
3. however when it pleaded BUMP's case in English court in 2016 Fox Williams disclosed only one document to the judge and removed all the other documents from the case without Banner's consent, including the fourteen page document with key details and key features which Millgardh and Olsson exploited in their development of “Minute To Win It”,
4. Fox Williams ignored all of Banner's instructions to put all the documents before the judge,
5. it later admitted to its omission of BUMP's documents in a letter to Wiggin LLP of 13 December 2016: “the court does NOT YET have all of the factual information available and consequently is unable to issue a ruling on important questions…”,
6. It repeatedly invited Wiggin in separate letters to file an application to the court to strike out BUMP's claim against Wiggin’s clients in 2016,
7. BUMP's claim got struck out and Judge Justice Snowden cited insufficient facts and lack of evidence, Banner and his company suffered tremendous loss and damages.
8. Judge Justice Snowden rejected Fox Williams’ contention that he ruled as a matter of law and stated in his conclusions in 2017: “The Claimant's contention that I erred in law in requiring that a work should have some "distinguishing features" before it could qualify for copyright protection does not have any realistic prospect of success”,
9. The above conclusion by Judge Justice Snowden was based on the fact that Judge Justice Snowden did not have before him all the facts and documents Banner provided to Fox Williams for the case, as Fox Williams itself admitted in its letter to Wiggin, and those were the same facts and documents Fox Williams used when they successfully convinced the funding firm Augusta Ventures to fund BUMP's case.
So why is the above not evidence of Fox Williams’ professional negligence and breach of their signed retainer agreement?
Why is it not an act of fraud and deceit by Fox Williams when
1. Fox Williams obtains funds on the basis of “all BUMP's documents”,
2. gets paid in full on the basis of all BUMP's documents,
3. promises to plead BUMP's case in full and to act in BUMP's best interest,
4. but instead Fox Williams takes it upon itself and removes all BUMP's documents from the case without Banner's consent, except one, a four page draft document, which it uses to plead BUMP's entire case,
5. it admits its omissions in its letter to Wiggin,
6. it invites Wiggin to strike out BUMP's claim,
7. it wrongly advises Banner and BUMP to pursue a copyright claim against Wiggin’s clients, passing off, breach of confidence, when the facts and evidence showed that copyright was never an issue between Friday TV and Banner's company BUMP, and Wiggin and their clients used copyright as false pretext to avoid to pay royalties for Banner's work when they never disputed copyright when they paid millions to a white person, Swedish Caroline af Ugglas, for an oral idea,
8. it ignores Banner's expressed concerns in Banner's email of 21 November 2016 and Banner's repeated instructions to put all the documents before the judge, including the discovered links evidence of concealed contracts between Friday TV and Banner's company BUMP, evidence of fourteen page gameshow document related to “Minute Winner - You got one minute to win it”, evidence of racial discrimination related to payment of royalties to a white person on the basis of an oral idea with no copyright dispute but a black person has to go to court to ask to get paid,
9. BUMP's claim gets struck out and Banner and his company suffer serious loss?
Why both Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith conclude that BUMP's claim against Fox Williams and Wiggin LLP is an abuse of process despite all of the above facts and evidence Banner put before them?
The English court must not be used as an instrument for cover up, fraud, or racial discrimination.
There is dishonesty, bias, cover up in both judges’ conduct and handling of BUMP's case and they have abused their position in favour of law firms Wiggin LLP and Fox Williams and their insurance companies.

This calls for an investigation and for a review of Deputy Master Linwood and Mr Justice Richard Smith's court’s decisions.

web counter