Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[exiledscouser]

That’s a most coruscating observation, perhaps the best ever seen in the whole history of these ancient islands.

MoB loves a good boastful crow about his fantasy legal victories. Take for instance this incisive result;

In August 2010, I placed a lien over former HBOS CEO, James Crosby, to recover the damages his fraudulent company policies had caused me, in its bogus claim for £2.5 M against my family’s property trust.

The Affidavit of Obligation [the lien] was filed into and sealed by the High Court, following which HHJ Kaye QC confirmed in an ex-parte hearing that the document was capable of enforcement and required no judicial intervention to be held as valid under the Common Law, provided the allegations were substantiated with compelling evidence.

Almost nine years later, following three High Court cases against Bank of Scotland, during which they illegally disposed of nine of my family’s properties, the bank capitulated just a few weeks after The Great British Mortgage Swindle was released in the UK, cancelling the last remaining void mortgage over my sister’s home.

How does losing nine properties translate into a crushing victory? It’s more likely that the equity released from the sale of the previous nine properties cleared off any remaining debt. Banks don’t run scared from crappy documentary makers and their paper terrorism. But hey, you take comfort where you can. MoB thunders on;

Now that the allegations contained in the lien were proven beyond any reasonable doubt, a final Notice of Default & Exemplary Damages was served, multiplying my claim 100 fold. I also explained that if the perfected lien wasn’t satisfied immediately, I would accept an offer I had already received to exchange it for a discounted value in a currency of my choosing.

Despite several attempts by a Lloyds Group executive, who was appointed by Crosby to settle the matter, I agreed to exchange the lien for cryptocurrency in mid-February 2020. Nevertheless, Crosby, is still liable for criminal fraud against my family.

Forgive me if I call bullshit on this nonsense but accepting some magic beans when you have a cast iron case for oodles of worthless fiat currency……Of course Mikey never produces anything, nothing at all which might serve to corroborate this.

I suppose I’ll just have to accept him at his word.



Like shite I will!!!!

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Could you sue if named in a clearly without merit PCP?

Well, I think that being publicly named as a murderer would be classed as defamation of some sort!

[John Uskglass]

It's all a bit Dunning-Kruger, isn't it? Take this, from his post promoting the Great SHOUT.

Totalitarian non-compliance is therefore the only peaceful way to deal with such an unaccountable de facto government, which is now openly threatening to breach the Nuremberg Code by making experimental and potentially fatal medication mandatory.

a) Non-compliance can't be totalitarian. It looks as if he may think 'totalitarian' is a superlative of 'total'.
b) As any fule know, 'de facto' is used to indicate that 'something is a particular thing, even though it was not planned or intended to be that thing'. (Collins) It could be used of a government, I grant you, but not of one elected by the normal process.

[SpearGrass]

You can't sue for libel for anything said in court proceedings, but this isn't in said in court proceedings, it's on his website. There's no protection unless and until the summons is issued. So, yes, it does appear to be libellous.

However a libel action is expensive and time consuming. Thousands of people have accused the prime minister, Matt Hancock, Prof Whitty, etc of genocide, they can't spend all their time, or all the time of the Govt Legal Dept, pursing these silly people.

It's normal for applications for summonses to be heard on the papers in private - Rule 7 of the Crim PR says so. There's good reason for that - a summons accuses someone of a crime, and if the application is so hopeless that a summons isn't issued, it's unfair to drag the defendant's name through the mire. From what we know, this is such an application and court time is too previous to waste on frivolities, when the thing can be done on paper.

[SpearGrass]

Ah, I see now, he's applying for search warrants to look for evidence. Those are only available to constables, who have to swear an information on oath. There is less chance of me flying to the moon on a turtle than a court granting those. I'm leaning towards him being delusional, in the same way Neelu Berry is delusional, in believing anyone who matters will fall for it.

[SpearGrass]

Sorry, developing a stammer

Ah, I see now, he's applying for search warrants to look for evidence. Those are only available to constables, who have to swear an information on oath. There is less chance of me flying to the moon on a turtle than a court granting those. I'm leaning towards him being delusional, in the same way Neelu Berry is delusional, in believing anyone who matters will fall for it.

[John Uskglass]

Thanks Spear Grass for the clarification.

Thousands of people have accused the prime minister, Matt Hancock, Prof Whitty, etc of genocide, they can't spend all their time, or all the time of the Govt Legal Dept, pursing these silly people.

Indeed, but the fact that he claims to have eight as yet unnamed people in his sights, and the wording of the 'charges' laid out in the most recent post suggest to me that he's got some specific cases (medical) in mind, and wants to prosecute those involved in their care, rather than going after those at the top.

That would, as I understand it, also mean that the PCP would not have to go to the CM?

I also note in passing that he's been very careful from the start to claim that the PCP is issued by the People's Union of Britain, rather than Mr M Waugh.

[longdog]

Despite several attempts by a Lloyds Group executive, who was appointed by Crosby to settle the matter, I agreed to exchange the lien for cryptocurrency in mid-February 2020.

Forgive me if I call bullshit on this nonsense but accepting some magic beans when you have a cast iron case for oodles of worthless fiat currency……Of course Mikey never produces anything, nothing at all which might serve to corroborate this.

I suppose I’ll just have to accept him at his word.



Like shite I will!!!!

He is telling the truth in a way. He did agree to exchange the lien for cryptocurrency. But...

A more accurate version would be that he agreed with himself to exchange his worthless lien for its equivalent value (nothing) in an imaginary cryptocurrency of his own invention. He agreed to swap, with himself, something that effectively didn't exist for something else which didn't exist. He simply renamed nothing.

[longdog]

Going only slightly off topic....

During the hearing, Chew became increasingly exasperated and insisted Whitty should be at court for the trial. “The law is that I have the right for him to come,” he told the court. “I want Chris Whitty there.”

“I suspect I know a bit more about the law than you do,” Goldspring replied, explaining that Prof Whitty does not legally have to attend court as the facts of the case had been agreed between the prosecution and defence.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ssing-gown

[John Uskglass]

You missed out the best bit.

Goldspring said: “Your cavalier approach to the severity of these proceedings is breathtaking.”

“What does cavalier mean?” Chew interjected.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

However a libel action is expensive and time consuming. Thousands of people have accused the prime minister, Matt Hancock, Prof Whitty, etc of genocide, they can't spend all their time, or all the time of the Govt Legal Dept, pursing these silly people.

That is true. It is expensive and time consuming but, at least in the UK, the mere threat of suing is usually enough to scare the crap out of anyone who has tangible assets and we know O'Bonkers has some in his trust. A single solicitors letter isn't usually that expensive.

Isn't libel law (and also copyright) something that you can be selective over who you target to sue? I know that to protect a trademark you have to vigilantly monitor it to maintain it, which is why you often get on the face of it heavy handed actions, but I don't think you have to sue every libel by everyone to be successful against someone specific. i.e. "Well you didn't sue <X> for saying it." is not a defence, and a movie studio doesn't have to sue every person who has made an illegal copy of a film to prove a case against an individual.

And this is tantamount to using the courts to harass. I guess it could be argued that as it's never got to the stage of it ever being a case, that that particular line of thought is moot and a one-off attempt is a natural right of a citizen, but now he's abusing the court process with his multiple attempts.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Doesn't appear to be related to O'Bonkers but I guess he'll be annoyed by others moving in on his turf. Apparently from an actual law firm.

From @KDenkWrites



https://twitter.com/KDenkWrites/status/ ... 7422413829

[longdog]

I hope the solicitor got their client to sign a waiver to confirm they didn't have a case and they were throwing money down the toilet.

If that letter doesn't warrant a referral to the response given in Arkell vs Pressdram nothing does.

Or maybe the solicitor is vaccine hesitant a rat licking disease enthusiast too.

[SpearGrass]

That would, as I understand it, also mean that the PCP would not have to go to the CM?

Case of "unusual sensitivity" also go to the CM. Guidance to legal advisers (who consider these initially) is to send cases against major figures in church or state to the Chief Magistrate. If he laid an information against Prof Whitty or someone else where the objective were to challenge the entire anti-covid programme it would come into that category so would also be sent there.

With regard to suing Mr Waugh for libel, no responsible public official would dignify his gibberish with a libel action; it would just give him his day in court. He is obviously exercising our minds, and Judge Ikram’s from time to time, but hardly anyone else has heard of him. He can be easily put in his box simply by refusing the summons, which is done in chambers on the papers without putting the defendant to any trouble or cost.

If Mr Waugh had wanted to keep the identity of the person behind the prosecutor a secret, he would have been wise not to spray it across the internet. If (and it’s a very big if) the summonses were issued, he would have to come out into the open, because the hearing would be in court and he would either have to present it, or instruct (and pay) a lawyer to do so, and real lawyers want to know who their client is.

[SpearGrass]

Apparently from an actual law firm.

Colour me cynical, but until I see the letterhead and can check if it's a real law firm I won't believe it. Though I have known solicitors send letters tilting at windmills for a few quid, but they'll be much less ready to actually take their lance, mount Rosinante and launch a real attack. And the downpayment they would ask for such an ambitious case would be beyond the means of most fotlers, who are not known for their willingness to pay ££.

[John Uskglass]

If he laid an information against Prof Whitty or someone else where the objective were to challenge the entire anti-covid programme it would come into that category so would also be sent there.

It's hard to certain, because Waugh is obfuscating, presumably to give him wriggle room, but here's my take on where we are.

In his four posts on 18 & 19/12/21, he names 'defendants' and lays out a whole load of anti-vax conspiracy bollocks. At no point does he specify what actual crime in law these people have committed. I agree that these people, all senior members of the medical/political establishment, would be unlikely to take any action against yet one more random nutter on the internet. As previously discussed, not a cat in hell's chance of a PCP on these grounds being accepted.

However, it also looks as if he intends to try to go after medical staff involved in specific end of life cases.

This is from his post of 7/12/21:

In other words, following the abject failure of the conspiracy to derail the PCP over the past eighteen months, we have built a case upon the expert and eye witness testimony of eighteen witnesses, including six doctors, five nurses, an undertaker and seven family members of victims, as well as two survivors of attempted murder on wards in two major English hospitals.

And on 21/12/21:

Firstly, the Statement of Case and the 432 page evidence bundle, including harrowing eye witness testimony from the relatives of loved ones who were murdered with Midazolam, as per government policy which kicked into full swing in 2016, were filed electronically at a Magistrates Court, the location of which shall remain nameless until such time that the case is listed to be heard by a jury, for the purposes of negating the possibility of foul play from our powerful adversaries.

We will however initially seek to prove three all too similar cases of murder with Midazolam, each in a different location and at a different time, between October 2016 and April 2021.

In each case, the following things transpired:

1 The victim was prescribed Midazolam for conditions they were not known to be suffering from, after being placed on the end-of-life pathway.

2 The victim was then denied essential care and services and treated as if they were already dead by NHS staff.

3 The Midazolam doses were given to the victim until they stopped breathing and died.

4 The wishes and well being of the victim and their family were callously ignored.

5 No consent was given by either the victim or their next of kin for them to be prescribed Midazolam.

To me this reads as if he's managed to rope in some relatives or others connected with the deceased. If you recall, we did see some outrageous scenes in hospitals with FMOTL types barging into hospitals and interfering with patient treatment early in the pandemic.

Clearly such accusations against practising NHS staff would have potentially serious consequences, and I suspect that Waugh is keeping details of the PCP secret, and hiding behind the PUB because he realises that he may be at some risk of (legal) retaliation.

Obviously, as always with Waugh, there's also the possibility that all this is mere bluster.

[longdog]

I'll stand correcting on this but if the eight "defendants" are alleged to have committed murder, and there were eight 'victims', then he would have to bring eight separate private prosecutions. He can't just lump them together into one private prosecution unless he can show that the "offences" were closely linked. Being similar in the mind of a delusional internet gobshite isn't anywhere near close.

Even if he is going after NHS staff, and it goes before an ordinary magistrate, I'm 99.9% confident they would chuck it out on that basis alone.

[John Uskglass]

My reading is three 'victims' and eight 'perpetrators'. But your point still stands.

Also, I hadn't noticed before, but the first date is alleged to be 2016, so pre pandemic. Which makes me lean even more to actual deaths.

[longdog]

Also, I hadn't noticed before, but the first date is alleged to be 2016, so pre pandemic.

My evidence bereft wild speculation research would suggest confirm that's one of his fans who wants to jump on the bandwagon and has decided granny was murdered with MIdazolam five years ago.

How's that for prima facie?

Facts? I don't need no steenking facts!

[SpearGrass]

It is possible to bring a private prosecution against multiple defendants (the police do it all the time). The first stage, laying the information (which is the point at which Waugh is now) has to be made up of individual informations against individual defendants. Even if there are three clearly linked charges against one individual (excess alcohol, driving while disqualified and dangerous driving, say, all relating to the same piece of driving), there have to be three informations. If the court issues the summons it can put all three informations against a single person on the same summons. But separate people have to have separate summonses (council tax is an exception, but that's statutory). However once the cases get to court, the court will decide whether there should be a joint trial or separate trials. If they decide they're founded on the same or similar facts or part of a series, it will be one trial, and thus you could say there will be one prosecution.

So theoretically Waugh could lay informations against a number of people for linked offences, and it would be a single prosecution, because the court says so.

However this is all counting chickens before the eggs are even laid, let alone hatched. For one thing, if he's sending reams of stuff in, he's clearly not completing the standard form (https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ed-offence), and the mystery magistrates' court which received it may just send it back, do not pass go.