Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[Pottapaug1938]

I love the way that these self-educated... um, "legal experts" take the word of a long-out-of-print legal dictionary over THE ACTUAL LAW.

[NYGman]

It's a bit convoluted, but I think what he's trying to say is that throwing out the evidence based on hearsay, if correct, would also exclude all the evidence used to justify covid measures. So his win is that Court ruling his expert is testimony is hearsay results in them also ruling that anything the government presents on covid is also hearsay and also inadmissible. At least that's what I think he thinks, but any more than a light skimming makes the brain hurt.

[longdog]

It's a bit convoluted, but I think what he's trying to say is that throwing out the evidence based on hearsay, if correct, would also exclude all the evidence used to justify covid measures. So his win is that Court ruling his expert is testimony is hearsay results in them also ruling that anything the government presents on covid is also hearsay and also inadmissible. At least that's what I think he thinks, but any more than a light skimming makes the brain hurt.

I thought that might be the point he was trying to make but I wasn't sure as it's so idiotic. Is he really dumb enough to believe that the rules that apply to evidence in court also apply to political decisions?

It really is so incoherent I think it transcends "brain hurt" and is well into "brane hert" territory.

[longdog]

I love the way that these self-educated... um, "legal experts" take the word of a long-out-of-print legal dictionary over THE ACTUAL LAW.

I assume the definition in Black's that he rejects doesn't support his already unsupportable argument quite as well.

[John Uskglass]

Well that was unexpected

And I'm sure we're all shocked to find that it wos the Jews wot dun it:

we already live in an authoritarian police state, under Big Pharma’s unaccountable Bolshevik dictatorship, otherwise known as the Rothschild Cartel’s Cabinet Office.

Even by Waugh's standards, the sheer amount of ludicrously obvious wrong in the latest piece is pretty gobsmacking.

Here he spectacularly fails to understand the material he quotes as damning evidence:

In the above-linked article, written by Whitty and six other authors, including Ferguson, in Nature Magazine, on 06/11/2014, they wrote of the situation in Sierra Leone:

“One proposed strategy — giving families information and basic personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize transmission while nursing patients at home — is problematic. Using PPE safely is difficult even for professionals, as infection rates in health-care workers demonstrate. And identifying cases and training families requires staff that Sierra Leone does not have. This approach is acceptable only as a desperate humanitarian measure when there is no space available in health facilities. It is not a good strategy to reduce transmission. […]

<snip>

It also proves that they knew PPE “is not a good strategy to reduce transmission”, yet they imposed mandatory masks, hand sanitizers and isolation gowns upon the British people, allegedly to minimize transmission

Waugh fails to understand that Ebola is not spread by droplets from coughs etc, that people were not in general nursing Covid patients at home (those well enough to manage at home were asked to self isolate, those too sick to manage were hospitalised), and that whatever criticism there might be of the NHS, it is better funded, staffed and equipped than the health system in Sierra Leone. That strategies might differ in the two cases is to be expected.

One might have thought that Waugh's team of experts would have pointed this out....

[exiledscouser]

I love the way that these self-educated... um, "legal experts" take the word of a long-out-of-print legal dictionary over THE ACTUAL LAW.

I assume the definition in Black's that he rejects doesn't support his already unsupportable argument quite as well.

He really is booting Blacks into touch: everyone knows it’s Bouviers 1902 that’s the definitive guide to law passed over a hundred years after publication and of course it’s interpretation. It’s just amazing to see him twist and dissemble in the face of facts, he really thought he’d ride triumphant, adored by the masses as they carry him aloft. For all his faux rage, rage and more rage his flowery invective can’t hide that it’s MoB’s latest big fail in an unbroken chain of utter failure.

He’s a spoilt child, his dummy being well spit out and he is not happy. He thought the DJ who was reviewing his collection of internet downloads was an honourable chap for holding his hand up, initially, at least when he found he’d failed to marry the file of “evidence” with the information. Now of course having rejected the case out of hand he’s another member of the cabal and corrupt to boot.

It says they are to appeal, I hope they start attracting punitive costs for pushing these vexatious actions which are completely without merit.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It says they are to appeal, I hope they start attracting punitive costs for pushing these vexatious actions which are completely without merit.

Whilst I too would hope that would be the case, he's a trust baby and there are plenty of morons out there who would fund it. Punitive damages would be no deterrent, but merely proof that the establishment are out to get him.

He's just a very very stupid person. I don't see anything in the common law that prevents him from continuing to be a very very stupid person.

[hucknallred]

I'm hoping for some great announcement on the appeal from him soon. We at the MoB Fan Club Facesbook group like our countdown / count-up timers.

Q Members that indulge in soshul meeja are welcome to join us. Use the code word Illuminati in the entrance exam & you're in.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/142450113953610

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Q Members that indulge in soshul meeja are welcome to join us. Use the code word Illuminati in the entrance exam & you're in.

You evil person. I'm almost tempted to sign up again to Facebook.

[longdog]

It says they are to appeal, I hope they start attracting punitive costs for pushing these vexatious actions which are completely without merit.

I'm wondering if this decision is actually subject to appeal. On the one hand I can see that every court decision should be appealable but on the other hand this case has elements of being Aquittal-Lite for Hancock <spit>, Whitty et al.

I know it's not exactly comparable but it is at least similar to the bogies charging you and bringing you before the beak next day without any real evidence that a crime had even been committed let alone that you had committed it. If the magistrate says "What? I'm not having this in my court, case dismissed and give the gentleman half a crown from public funds for his trouble", that to me says end of the matter.

At best he's going to have to appeal this on matters of law as far as I can see. Given that his grasp of the law is on a par with my grasp of Babylonic Cuniform (Washing Bills written therein) I can't see that being any more successful than his previous LARPing.

[John Uskglass]

I'm wondering if this decision is actually subject to appeal.

That crossed my mind as well. My very limited knowledge of the law suggests it would be a judicial review rather than an appeal. It's a difficult topic to get good results from an inexpert search, but this seems to imply that's the case.

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/ ... -decision

Any road, as I understand it, the CPS can just step in and discontinue a PP, if they become aware of it.

Reading round the topic, it feels as if Waugh has actually been let down quite lightly. This quote seems quite germane:

Where the primary motive for the prosecution is unrelated to the proceedings, it is likely to render the prosecution a misuse or an abuse of the Court’s process. A useful touchstone for consideration of the issue may be to ask whether the criminal legal process is being used against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed

https://www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk/ ... ions-code/

I think there's a reasonable argument that Waugh's latest diatribe shows that his PP falls within that definition of abuse of process.

[aesmith]

The ridiculous thing, well one of them, is that Bouvier is also a US dictionary.

The point about a private prosecution simply being the wrong way to go about things is borne out by one paragraph quoted by MoB (for some reason he thinks this is Hearsay, maybe he needs a different dictionary)..

“I am also satisfied that this application is intended as a means of reviewing the appropriateness of the government response to the ‘COVID virus’. I find that an attempt to bring a private prosecution, in any event, amounts to an improper purpose.”

[longdog]

Judicial review doesn't sound as sexy as a Private Criminal Prosecution against a minister though does it?

[Hercule Parrot]

Judicial review also invites liability for the other side's costs following inevitable defeat. That will run to tens of thousands, potentially more if Whitty and other accused boffins chose to be legally-represented during the proceedings. This seems to break Waugh's golden rule of never risking his personal comfort.

[Hercule Parrot]

Separate post for separate point. Scrolling down that odious website reveals Waugh's previous 'update' on 06 Jun, which had a quite different tone. This reminded me of a comment in a psychological study of vexatious and delusional litigants, but I can't recall the specific paper. Maybe our esteemed correspondent Dr Netolitzky can help with that.

Anyway, the point was that crazy fool litigants were often unctuously admiring of the judge right up to the verdict, and then flipped to diatribes of condemnation. Waugh precisely demonstrates this pattern. He thought that publishing obsequious tributes to the DCM would ensure a favourable hearing, and so feels cheated of what he deserved. In other cases the vexlit is so obsessed with the righteousness of their delusional claim that they genuinely believe any fair judge will inevitably find for them, so an adverse result must be corrupt.

Patiently awaiting the final decision of the presiding judge, as to whether he issues summonses for the defendants to answer the charges laid at Westminster Magistrates Court, we contacted the court to ascertain what stage the Deputy Chief Magistrate had reached in his deliberations.

Happily, we were deeply encouraged from the warm response we received, within just half an hour of the email of our request for an update.

Ongoing Consideration Upon The Evidence
Having been contacted by our ever-helpful liaison officer between Bromley and Westminster Magistrates Courts, we were informed that the judge requires more time because of the sheer weight of the evidence that is now before him. Naturally, we responded with our sincere gratitude for the speedy update.

Within ten minutes, the judge, who has already demonstrated his integrity by honouring our informal request that he set aside his initial decision to dismiss the action, when all he had before him was the Statement of Case, promptly sent us another message.

Noting that he is incapable of considering electronic evidence contained on a portable hard drive in the evidence files, the judge asked us to provide him with a hard copy of the leaked WHO flu ‘vaccine’ safety study [initially received on a hard drive], upon which we based our calculation of the flu vaxx mortality rate with 98% accuracy last Autumn.

An Integrous Judge in Troubled Times
However, not only does this constitute another example of the integrity of the judge deciding the destiny of the case, given that he could so easily have ignored the absence of the leaked study, arguing that it would not be enough to substantiate the allegations of pandemic fraud; it also comprises a dazzlingly positive indication that he intends to make his mind up upon the evidence alone, without fear or favour.

Therefore, despite the fact that the whole process has already eaten up the better part of the past six months, we have reasons to be cautiously optimistic that the case against the Four Horsemen of COVID-1984 is in the hands of a man who believes in the unalienable right to prosecute wrongdoers under the Common Law, irrespective of political office.

Moreover, the Deputy Chief Magistrate might well go on to prove that we do, at the very least, have one integrous senior judge left in this country, who fully comprehends that justice does not exist in a nation state where government officers cannot be held to account for their crimes against the People in a court of law.

[DNetolitzky]

Hercule,

My suspicion is you are thinking of one of a number of publications by Grant Lester and Paul Mullen:

https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vex ... rulous.pdf

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 3DBC3697D5

Given my job I have had the unfortunate experience of observing querulous individuals first-hand on many occasions. Once you know the characteristics, they are very easy to identify. Quite distinctive. Their "detonates after getting an unfavourable response" characteristic can be quite something to observe, this decision being a good illustration:

R. v. Prefontaine, 2002 ABQB 980: https://canlii.ca/t/5gcj

(See the attached Originating Notice.)

Never a good outcome with these people. Truly no-win situations.

[mufc1959]

I had the pleasure of hearing Grant Lester speak at a conference in around 2003 or 2004 and had a chat with him afterwards. He is a thoroughly nice bloke. It was the first time I'd come across the phrase 'morbidly querulous' and as he was describing the various characteristics, we were all nodding our heads in recognition. Over the years, as more and more people "know their rights" (or what they think are their rights), what used to be a relatively uncommon type of customer has now become far more prevalent.

[exiledscouser]

How ironic that Hancock was undone in the end by his own libido, not through any of MoB’s “excoriating” nonsense Private Prostitution’s.

If he’d just have waited a bit he could have claimed an assist. At the risk of something vaguely political I could not resist posting this;

[John Uskglass]

There are questions about who installed the security camera that caught Hancock at it and who leaked the footage. Isn't it obvious that the Deep State engineered Hancock's downfall to ensure that he was out of office before Waugh had him clapped in irons and sent to Belmarsh?

Of course this means that Waugh can console his followers with the thought that he'd have got his way on this if it hadn't been for that pesky kiss.

I'll get me coat.

[grixit]

An obvious frameup. He was just about to go public with the truth about how all british mortgages are fraudulent.