Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[John Uskglass]

From The Independent

A police commissioner has accused the UK’s major high street banks of perpetrating “serious organised crime” against their customers, potentially causing billions of pounds of losses over at least a decade by forging signatures to win court cases and repossess homes.

Anthony Stansfeld, police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, said that the National Crime Agency must launch a criminal investigation immediately and that it was a “national scandal and embarrassment” that it had not done so already.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/bus ... 47941.html

Waugh has previously made much of Stansfield's campaign on this issue.

IIRC the Treasury Select Committee was considering this matter prior to the election.

As of this writing, there has been no response by Waugh on his website, but something tells me that will soon change...

[longdog]

From what I remember of that story it largely concerned court documents that were not signed by the person they purported to be signed by. While that may very well be criminal it wouldn't necessarily mean the "victim" suffered any appreciable loss. If they were going to have the house repossessed anyway it would be hard to see how any court is going to do very much about the civil case.

I'm not defending the banks and if people have been forging signatures on court papers they deserve everything they get. But it's not going to overturn anything much or be O'Bonkers' "big win".

[doublelong]

And that’s been my argument with these fools online for the past 5 years. So what if somebody else signed it, so what if the date is not correct and so what if it was not witnessed you’re not going to get a free house.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

...you’re not going to get a free house.

Two years ago I had a right to do with my utility company. They stopped sending me bills; didn't do the OfGEM mandated 6 month Direct Debit review for 3 years (so I was quite happily paying monthly thinking I was up to date); changed my tariffs multiple times behind my back to their highest rate without informing me; sent me a bill for £3,000 in addition to what I was paying monthly; then after complaints "revised" it to £4,500! They even sent it to a debt collection agency who started hassling me even though the law is that once an official dispute has been raised all recovery action has to cease. All very dodgy behaviour. Thanks to the Citizen's Advice Bureau they eventually changed their minds.

But here's the rub. I'd still used the electricity. I still had to pay for it. Yes, I got significant compensation for their actions, but I still ended up paying them around £1,000 for the services I'd used.

[John Uskglass]

As IANAL, I found myself a bit confused as to the possible significance of the forged signatures allegations. It would not surprise me in the least if lenders were engaging in sharp and shoddy practices, and the 'fraud unravels all' assertion is seductive.

I found this article helpful in setting out in clear terms why any such thoughts are misplaced. Others here have indicated as much, but (and no disrespect), it's good to see independent legal confirmation of their arguments.

https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publica ... rs-fairly/

From a practical and professional perspective, therefore, it is highly unlikely that the systemic forging of signatures is occurring or accepted within the UK’s financial services industry. It is certainly not something which the author has ever encountered during many years’ practice in Banking Litigation.

However if a court were to find that a case-handler signing in the name of a supervisor did amount to dishonest conduct, and that any judgment following on from that was therefore obtained by fraud – what then?

In fact, it is quite possible that a court would not decide that any such fraud must unravel possession/debt judgments made in favour of banks in any event, because to do so could fly in the face of both the principle of res judicata (that is, the rule against re-litigation which emphasises the importance of finality in litigation) and the practical convention that the courts should avoid ‘opening the floodgates’ to any flow of claims where that would be contrary to public policy and to the efficiency and efficacy of the court process [5]. Certainly if significant numbers of cases were brought, this could bring chaos to an already overburdened court system.

In addition, of course, in the vast majority of cases the fact would remain that borrowers had had the benefit of funds advanced to them and had failed to repay. In such cases it is more than likely that the law of equity (fundamental fairness) would ultimately provide a remedy for the banks, and would prevent borrowers from becoming unjustly enriched.

There is therefore a genuine risk that the BSFC’s allegations – just like any other type of ‘get out of your mortgage free’-type claims which are fuelled by social media forums but which are inevitably legally flawed – are misconceived. The real danger is that belief and reliance upon misleading and incorrect assertions could actually prove harmful to borrowers. In particular, there is a risk that borrowers misled into withholding mortgage/loan payments could be exposed to mounting debt and potentially even to losing their homes, adding to the problems of those already in financial difficulties.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Others here have indicated as much, but (and no disrespect), it's good to see independent legal confirmation of their arguments.

Indeed. There are a few lawyers here, but I guess most of us extrapolate our experiences to produce logical arguments.

In the early nineties, I railed against my employer's terms and conditions because they'd given me an "automatic" promotion to a higher grade which changed my notice period from a month to three months. I had not signed any document. I worked in IT which meant that I was being constantly headhunted. I complained to my union rep and asked for trade union legal advice. First thing the union lawyer asked me was: "Did you accept the pay increase?" "Yep." "Well, you have accepted the new contract!"

They've taken the money and accepted the mortgage. No amount of magic words will change that!

[notorial dissent]

It would seem that the question(s) here are was the fraud against the court as to who signed what, or was it against the client. If the client's rights were not affected and he/they got due process, then it would seem there was no fraud against the client and I would think at best they would get a "do over" with the same ultimate ending.

If you're in and default and foreclosure then in the end it doesn't really matter who signs what unless you can cure. O'Wah's "do over" certainly didn't do him any good.

If the lawyer types were fudging it, then the court(s) need to come down on them.

[longdog]

...you’re not going to get a free house.

Two years ago I had a right to do with my utility company. They stopped sending me bills; didn't do the OfGEM mandated 6 month Direct Debit review for 3 years (so I was quite happily paying monthly thinking I was up to date); changed my tariffs multiple times behind my back to their highest rate without informing me; sent me a bill for £3,000 in addition to what I was paying monthly; then after complaints "revised" it to £4,500! They even sent it to a debt collection agency who started hassling me even though the law is that once an official dispute has been raised all recovery action has to cease. All very dodgy behaviour. Thanks to the Citizen's Advice Bureau they eventually changed their minds.

But here's the rub. I'd still used the electricity. I still had to pay for it. Yes, I got significant compensation for their actions, but I still ended up paying them around £1,000 for the services I'd used.

This wouldn't be Npower by any chance would it? Their incompetence is breathtaking.

Some years back I moved by the huge distance of "next door" and the chaos it caused was a joy to behold. They sent me letters saying sorry I was leaving them, letters saying thanks for joining them, three different final gas bills in different amounts on the same day, ditto electricity and four final statements for houses I'd never lived in in towns I'd never lived in or, in two cases, ever been to.

I got fed up with phoning them as it was clearly a waste of time and the ever more irate demands for money got ignored until the debt collectors got involved. At that point I sent the debt collectors and Npower basically the same letter saying "see you in court". Never heard anything again and I have to say I was quite disappointed.

I've just switched to Bulb and got final statements from Npower which were complete bollocks so I'm expecting a repeat performance. Luckily I recorded my call to them telling them to get stuffed and them admitting the "readings" may not be accurate so they would zero the bill. Yet to have the zeroed bills.

The woman on the phone got quite irate when I said "OK... I'll expect the zeroed bills but don't worry... I have recorded this conversation".

"YOU CAN'T RECORD TELEPHONE CALLS WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE OTHER PERSON!" Quoth she.

"I think you'll find I can" I ejaculated.

<click>.

[John Uskglass]

After a long period of silence, Waugh is back. And he's thrown in the towel regarding court proceedings.

In the absence of any realistic possibility of obtaining justice against the banksters in an increasingly tyrannous system, which we have already seen time and time again is rigged to protect them from the consequences of their myriad of crimes, we have been forced to identify, develop and implement a Common Law remedy for the TGBMS Claimants, which this article will endeavour to summarise and explain.

A long waffle about how it's back to magickal letters but this time with a dodgy cryptocurrency added to the mix follows, then:

Given the absence of a justice system in Britain, the TGBMS Class Actions will be filing each claim in a Grand Jury trial of whether our allegations of institutionalised mortgage fraud are proven by the evidence we have amassed over the past decade.

In the event the Grand Jury declares in our favour, we will demand that the Chief Land Registrar immediately cancels every fraudulently registered mortgage in the charges register.

Failure to adhere to the decision of the Grand Jury would render him both civilly and criminally liable for fraudulent mortgage registration, outside of the jurisdiction of the rigged system.

https://www.thebernician.net/lien-on-ba ... ortgagors/

I wonder how many of the faithful will follow him down this blind alley. (And indeed, how many of the faithful there actually are.)

I have to say I'm very disappointed that he's ducked out of the chance to hear the phrase 'totally without merit' again.

[notorial dissent]

Should is doing a lot of really heavy lifting to no great effect.

I see he has now stolen a failed sovcit scam from the US. And since there was never such a thing as a Grand Jury trial this is really going off in the weeds.

[longdog]

Failure to adhere to the decision of the Grand Jury would render him both civilly and criminally liable for fraudulent mortgage registration, outside of the jurisdiction of the rigged system.

So only civilly and criminally liable under the "jurisdiction" of a play-court which completely lacks jurisdiction.

[notorial dissent]

So does the Common Law Court outrank the Grand Jury court, or vice versa???? I's confuzzed…...

[hucknallred]

So does the Common Law Court outrank the Grand Jury court, or vice versa???? I's confuzzed…...

The People's Supreme Common Law Court outranks them all. I'll see to it that his claim is struck out.

[hucknallred]

I see he has now stolen a failed sovcit scam from the US. And since there was never such a thing as a Grand Jury trial this is really going off in the weeds.[/color][/b]

They've already declared a global pandemic as a fraud.
https://www.thebernician.net/grand-jury ... XrqtC9k6cc

[notorial dissent]

I see he has now stolen a failed sovcit scam from the US. And since there was never such a thing as a Grand Jury trial this is really going off in the weeds.[/color][/b]

They've already declared a global pandemic as a fraud.
https://www.thebernician.net/grand-jury ... XrqtC9k6cc

Well, good for them, now if they can just do something about death, taxes, and working for a living they may have accomplished something.

[Penny Wise]

Grand Jury is the way to go. Just ask Tom Crawford

http://loucollins.uk/2015/07/23/peoples ... -crawford/

He is back in Castle Crawford, was paid compensation and contrary to recent reports, the chicken is back in the castle grounds and is safe and sound - all thanks to Micheal O'Bonkers

[mufc1959]

I did a briefing on this today for my colleagues (just in case we receive any of this pile of bollocks), explaining that it's utter nonsense and that the so-called Affidavits are meaningless gibberish. Our response will be (and I paraphrase) "these aren't proper documents and they mean nothing, here's your Final Response Letter, take it to the Ombudsman - oh, and you still have to pay your mortgage".

[Dr. Caligari]

Our response will be (and I paraphrase) "these aren't proper documents and they mean nothing, here's your Final Response Letter, take it to the Ombudsman - oh, and you still have to pay your mortgage".

Way back in the 1970s, at the dawn of my legal career, one of my firm's clients got some preposterous demand letter from someone. I showed it to one of my superiors, who suggested that we respond with a telegram [shows you how long ago this was] saying, "F**k you. Strong letter to follow."

[longdog]

The Arkell vs Pressdram response... Always a good'un.

[Hercule Parrot]

A long waffle about how it's back to magickal letters but this time with a dodgy cryptocurrency added to the mix ....

This is hilarious:

Here is a basic summary of the lien process which any void mortgagor could engage to receive a comparable damages payout in iLien:

1. The void mortgagor [Lien Creditor] works out how much they have lost by way of the fraudulent mortgage transaction and sends a Notice of Lien Interest to the CEO of the mortgage company [Lien Debtor], stating that they are claiming that value in damages.

2. The void mortgagor serves an Affidavit of Obligation [the lien] upon the Lien Debtor, containing all of the allegations of fraud, with references to the substantiating evidence of that, along with Default Conditions. They are given 28 days to respond.

3. In the event the Lien Debtor does not respond appropriately with an affidavit rebutting each allegation with substantiating evidence, the Lien Creditor sends a Notice of Fault & Opportunity To Cure, giving them another 14 days to respond.

4. If no appropriate response is received, the Lien Creditor serves Notice of Default on the Lien Debtor, informing them that the default conditions will multiply the value claimed in damages, in the event the lien is not satisfied in full, 90 days after the Affidavit was served. Lien Debtors can be charged up to 100 times original value in Exemplary Damages.

5. At the end of 90 days, the lien is perfected and an Affidavit of Non-Response must be served on the Lien Debtor, with the Lien Creditor affirming under oath that all the lien documents have been properly administered.

6. Perfected liens can then be exchanged for iLien, which can easily be exchanged for Bitcoin, which can, in turn, easily be exchanged for fiat currency, should that prove necessary. It is also expected that iLien will very soon become spendable on a well-established Visa Debit card.

So to summarise, an aggrieved borrower just needs to demand £87,000 of imaginary losses from the lender, by a series of bloviating template letters. After payment has been refused, they can then claim £8.7m in the form of iLien, convert this to bitcoin and then to cash. Even after transaction fees they'll walk away with at least 8 million quid.

It's a brilliant plan, deficient only in the small detail that iLien is an imaginary and worthless cryptocurrency devised by Michael O'Bollocks himself, and it's tradeable value against bitcoin is 0.00000000 USD (https://explorer.ilien.io/).