Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[hucknallred]

Somerset you say? The woo words are similar, but not convinced it's O'Bonkers yet. Wouldn't it be the nutters that occupied Glastonbury Town Hall a few years back.

Danielle Davidson DeLioness was at the occupation. She still peddles PLD but it's a front for her grift.
I started a thread on her but it fizzled out into Tank talk.

[John Uskglass]

The woo words are similar, but not convinced it's O'Bonkers yet.

From the home page:

04.06.2023

Electroculture

Experiments in Electro Culture

There isn't actually a link to follow for whatever reason.


From Waugh's site:

Dystopian Homesteader | Electroculture, No-Dig Beds & Chalky White Sky
Posted on 3rd June 2023 by The Bernician

The site promotes the UCT cryptocurrency, and Magna Carta 2020.

Prosecution rests its case.

It reminds me of the Peoples Union of Britain site that was promoting Waugh's PCP - effectively a sock puppet.

Which reminds me that on 11 August Waugh told us that 'a PCP update will follow this weekend'...

[longdog]

According to this (usual pinch of salt advice applicable) page O'Bonkers' daughter has been taken into care. I didn't even know he had a family.

Note if you will the £25,000 begging bowl.

https://www.thebernician.net/the-kidnap ... -services/

[aesmith]

He's got competition, forget the mortgage "swindle" I give you the mortgage "con" ..

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/sovereig ... Z2ezDa1VqE

[wserra]

According to this (usual pinch of salt advice applicable) page O'Bonkers' daughter has been taken into care. I didn't even know he had a family.

It appears from the photo that the girl is a young teenager. Here in the US it takes a lot to remove a teenager from her home against her will and that of the parents. In fact, if it happened here, I would assume that the girl herself wanted it to happen, since the law would accord the wishes of someone of her age a good deal of weight.

If the legal picture is similar in the UK, the "usual pinch of salt" may be giving it too much credit.

[John Uskglass]

According to this (usual pinch of salt advice applicable) page O'Bonkers' daughter has been taken into care. I didn't even know he had a family.

Ah, that would explain why he hasn't posted anything on Twiiter/X since 13 Sept.

Looking at this

https://eachother.org.uk/child-taken-ca ... -publicly/

it would seem that he's skating on thin ice in the linked blog post.

When a child is subject to care proceedings, do their parents have a right to initiate a petition about it? What about the children’s rights?

The short answer is that parents can in some circumstances publish a petition, but they have to be careful about what information they include. It can’t include anything that would identify the children, or anything about ongoing care proceedings. Here’s why.

However, that's from 2017 and IANAL.

Not dissecting the contents of the blog post here, but I note that a hostile reader could easily interpret sections of it as indicative of paranoid delusional thinking.

[longdog]

Not dissecting the contents of the blog post here, but I note that a hostile reader could easily interpret sections of it as indicative of paranoid delusional thinking.

I would say he's clearly showing paranoid and delusional thinking but it begs the question as to whether it's genuine or merely a part of the grift that's designed to appeal to the paranoid and delusional.

[John Uskglass]

it begs the question as to whether it's genuine or merely a part of the grift that's designed to appeal to the paranoid and delusional.

If the latter, the disregard for the possible consequences for his family doesn't exactly show him in the best light as a parent.

[SpearGrass]

First, the caveat that I'm basing my conclusions on an unreliable narrator, so they might be completely wrong.

We're a bit of the way downstream in the process as this is probably the police enforcing an interim care order. Those are made by a court on notice, the parents are parties to the proceedings and entitled to legal aid. Once the order is made, the police can assist the court in enforcing it (it's called a recovery order), and that appears to be what's happened here. So if it was an interim care order, it's surprising that he and his wife were surprised.

Alternatively the police might be acting under their powers under s. 46 Children Act, to remove a child to a place of safety in an emergency. But given that he refers to an existing interim care order, that's less likely.

A care order, even an interim one, is a serious step and not done if the court considers there is another option to secure the child's safety, and - obviously - grounds. Downstream, there will be a final hearing in which the court will have to decide whether to make a full care order, and Waugh appears to be doing all the right things to ensure that it will have to make one, as a lack of parental co-operation means that a) the council's facts are uncontested and b) the court can't have any belief that things will be any better if they send the child back home.

The best thing he could do is go to a proper family solicitor and accept their advice, which will inevitably involve engaging with the local authority. What are the chances? To be fair, he is refraining from naming the child, as others (e.g. Hannah Badr) do not, so he may be more co-operative with the local authority in real life than he is on the internet. But the fact that, as it appears, the police had to go and recover the child suggests that he's not co-operating very much.

Who are all these experts Waugh consults? Leading barristers, prosecutors and now social workers, who all agree with him. They're probably all called Harris.

[hucknallred]

He's got competition, forget the mortgage "swindle" I give you the mortgage "con" ..

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/sovereig ... Z2ezDa1VqE

Saw this spammed on a few FB groups. Probably best recorded in piss drinking Dave Murphy's own thread.

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10421&start=40

[hucknallred]

Who are all these experts Waugh consults? Leading barristers, prosecutors and now social workers, who all agree with him. They're probably all called Harris.

Not forgetting this list of experts that were involved in one of his failed cases. Not sure if it was Midazolam moidah or Mortgages.

despite the expert witness credentials of three doctors, two professors, a dental surgeon, a mathematician, a probate solicitor, a retired senior nuclear submarine data analyst, an independent data analyst and an ex CID fraud detective

https://www.thebernician.net/pub-to-app ... s-hearsay/

[John Uskglass]

Not forgetting this list of experts that were involved in one of his failed cases.

Which included, let us not forget, a top KC. Which begs the question as to why, if he had one on tap, he now tells us that:

That’s why I now urgently need to raise at least £25,000 to engage a top KC this week, in order to apply to strike out the unlawful proceedings against my family as vexatious, malicious and fraudulent and to begin a criminal prosecution for the joint enterprise kidnap of a minor.

One also wonders why Waugh has had several appointments with a notary, prior to the care proceedings.

There is no doubt that their intention was to kidnap her while I was out at the notary appointment, which was fifteen minutes shorter than all of my previous appointments at the same office during the same period in late afternoon.

Seeing as how I'm quoting from the post, might as well highlight the crazy.

However, the primary reason this happened has absolutely nothing to do with our triple world champion daughter’s welfare and everything to do with my enemies trying to stop me pulling off a deal that will give birth to a new credit-based monetary system, which will cause their debt-based, fraudulent, WEF controlled, Babylonian system to explode and collapse in its own footprint, just like Building 7 did on 9/11.

Moreover, one of the most chilling facts that I have been forced to ponder is why my daughter was kidnapped 22 years to the day after I was placed on MI5’s ‘Potential Subversives’ list because of what I was told that day on a bugged call with the ex-wife of Kissinger’s right hand man, who told me all about how the staged acts of terrorism were carried out and who was responsible, just two days after the staged event took place.


That explains why the Financial Conduct Authority [FCA] is already briefing civil servants to warn the banks that “accepting MOB’s perfected liens will destroy the UK banking industry”, according to our ever reliable insiders.

Those insiders also contend that the kidnap of my daughter was an improvised part of an MI6 operation with two foreign intelligence agencies, to identify the best way to silence my voice in time for the next lockdown and to punish me for making The Great British Mortgage Swindle and The Three Faced Terrorist, the two most anti-establisment documentaries of the century thus far.

There is even a rumour that the psyop in play is called Jacinda’s Revenge, which appears to have been commissioned during her recent unexpected visit to the UK, when BoJo was still puppet prime minister and in the line of fire from the Private Criminal Prosecution that Dave Laity, who is also the survivor of a confirmed assassination attempt, and I are still running against the lockdown criminals, as well as the vaxxtermintation and midazolam murderers.

[Hercule Parrot]

We're a bit of the way downstream in the process as this is probably the police enforcing an interim care order. Those are made by a court on notice, the parents are parties to the proceedings and entitled to legal aid. Once the order is made, the police can assist the court in enforcing it (it's called a recovery order), and that appears to be what's happened here. So if it was an interim care order, it's surprising that he and his wife were surprised.

Alternatively the police might be acting under their powers under s. 46 Children Act, to remove a child to a place of safety in an emergency. But given that he refers to an existing interim care order, that's less likely.

I concur. 99% likelihood that Waugh has been a party in family court proceedings, and knows exactly why his daughter is being removed. Also 99% likelihood that a prolonged engagement with safeguarding social workers came first. Only a small proportion of the most serious & intractable cases go to court. And, as remarked above, very unlikely that the girl seriously objects to this.

Interesting that Waugh claims that he and his wife were subsequently "forced into separation". Neither social services or the family court can compel this, it could only be achieved by criminal bail conditions. I don't think this was forced, but rather his wife has made this decision. Significant, because if Mrs W is willing and able to safeguard the daughter, she will likely be invited to do that.

Finally, Waugh's claim that MI6 and foreign intelligence agencies are collaborating to silence him before he brings down the global banking system is nonsensical. If he really posed that risk, he would've died in a tragic car crash by now, or at minimum be remanded incommunicado to HMP Belmarsh under terrorism powers. It's a lie to conceal the true reasons.

Adopting SpearGrass's wise caution about speculation, I will rely on Occam's Razor. The most simple and likely reality is that Waugh presents a significant risk of harm to his daughter. If Mrs W kicks him out and works with social services, the girl can return home. I imagine Waugh will explain this by claiming his ex is under satanic mind control, or has sold out to the Jews/Freemasons/Bankers.

[hucknallred]

According to this (usual pinch of salt advice applicable) page O'Bonkers' daughter has been taken into care. I didn't even know he had a family.

Note if you will the £25,000 begging bowl.

https://www.thebernician.net/the-kidnap ... -services/

I notice that he's taken that page down now. One wonders if he was told to do so.
Wayback Machine took a snapshot at 5AM today, you have to wonder if he knew he wasn't allowed to post, but did it over the weekend, knowing nobody will be around to order a takedown until today.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231009051 ... -services/

[longdog]

I notice that he's taken that page down now. One wonders if he was told to do so.
Wayback Machine took a snapshot at 5AM today, you have to wonder if he knew he wasn't allowed to post, but did it over the weekend, knowing nobody will be around to order a takedown until today.

Well he posted it last Tuesday if not before so it's not that. Far more likely that his "notoriously comprehensive knowledge of the law" didn't stretch to him knowing that he wasn't allowed to post that sort of thing. Messrs Dunning and Kruger strike again.

[Hercule Parrot]

By addendum to above, I have just serendipitously noted another case involving Mortgage Five Zero. Significantly, this dates back to June 2018, and MFZ have remained involved throughout the disastrous litigation. Their "client" Mr Kehinde Odukoya has lost his family home, and earned an ECRO.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk ... h/2023/441

Being the cause of several people getting CROs seems to be the only thing at which Mortgage Five Zero is successful.

Another ECRO for the pile. Mr Jason Campbell's numerous attempts at "Waugh-Law" have been laughed out of court:

47. According to the Skeleton Argument of Mr Jason Campbell, filed with the Bundle lodged at Court on 15 September, the essential point relied on is again that the decision in the Helden case is wrong or can in some way be distinguished and marginalised. The point seems to be that the Company should not have been forced out of business by an incorrect decision of the Court of Appeal which will be shown to be wrong if it can only be revisited. Thus at para. 9 of his Skeleton Argument, Mr Campbell says: “Delays in receiving justice is not down to the Company, instead a judgment in the Court of Appeal that misinterprets the law.”

48. This submission is misconceived and must be rejected. To put it bluntly, the law on the point is what the Court of Appeal has said it is. The Company’s continued operation cannot be justified on the basis that a decision of the Court of Appeal is wrong. There is no reason whatever to doubt the decision in Helden and it must be accepted as correct, and a business whose function is to exploit the contrary proposition, and to provide false hope to vulnerable consumers who are already likely to be in financial difficulty, is plainly not in the public interest. That is what Deputy ICC Judge Agnello thought and she was obviously correct in her assessment.

49. I conclude that the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success and that there is no other compelling reason why the appeal should proceed. The Company’s application for permission to appeal is therefore dismissed. I certify it as totally without merit.

.......

67. The upshot is that I have no doubt that an ECRO should be made against Mr Jason Campbell. The overall pattern could not be clearer: the many applications referenced above and in the attached Annex all show that he is incapable of taking no for an answer, when it comes to the Company’s misguided argument based on s. 2 of the 1989 Act. I will impose an ECRO on him for the maximum period of three years. To the extent necessary I will join Mr Campbell as a party to Appeal CH-2023-000093 for the purpose of doing so.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk ... /2023/2654

[John Uskglass]

Waugh has posted an update on the custody case relating to his daughter.
https://www.thebernician.net/major-pro ... -daughter/

However, whilst I will soon be telling the story of what has transpired on my blog [and in a new feature documentary I am making called SNATCHED], for legal reasons, I am only able to tell you the following things.

I have denied the Family Court jurisdiction to act, maintained Superior Guardianship Rights and have not been served with a single court document, even though social services falsely claim they have been trying to serve me since the start.

It is therefore obvious that I am not even a party to the case, which was confirmed by the court last Friday, implicitly meaning that my daughter should never have been taken out of my care.

Its hard to know what to make of this. Is he just flat out lying about not being a party to the case? To speculate, is there a connection with the fact that Waugh claims not to have registered the child's birth?

Who has parental responsibility for a child?
A mother will automatically have parental responsibility for a child from birth, but a father will only have parental responsibility if they’re married to the mother or are named on the child’s birth certificate as the father.

https://nationallegalservice.co.uk/nati ... e%20child.

Is the fact that Waugh was having appointments with a notary related?

If you don’t automatically have parental responsibility for a child, you may be able to apply but it will depend on your association to the child.

Why do you need to show proof of parental responsibility?
Proof of parental responsibility means having some kind of document that proves that you have a relationship with a child where you provide them with their basic needs, as listed above.

This could be shown in the form of having your name on the child’s birth certificate, but it could also be a consent letter that has been signed and dated by the parent of the child.

Depending on who you are trying to prove your parental responsibility to, you may also need to provide documents confirming your address, the child’s address, and confirmation of the child’s date of birth.

Be that as it may, as ever, Waugh is parroting legal terms which would appear to have no status in UK law with his reference to 'Superior Guardianship Rights'. And claiming that you can deny the Family Court jurisdiction to act is an interesting strategy.

At least he does now admit that his previous claims that the case was part of a conspiracy against him were mistaken, at least partially.

I was wrong about the taking of my daughter being an MI6 operation. MI6 simply hoped to capitalize on the demoralizing course of events.

Perhaps he realised that coming across as unhinged might be counterproductive.

[longdog]

...and have not been served with a single court document, even though social services falsely claim they have been trying to serve me since the start.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if that translates as "I have refused to accept court documents because I'm trying the bury-your-head-in-the-sand method again" or "I have been served court documents but they don't conform to requirements I have pulled out of my arse".

[longdog]

Nonetheless, I have now been completely denied all forms of contact with my wonderful daughter for seven and a half weeks, which will have caused her significant emotional harm that may take years to recover from and which only happened because she was unlawfully taken into care.

A no contact order? There's something serious behind that methinks. If he's pushing his paranoid and delusional 'The world is out to get you' bullshit onto the kid I would imagine, or at least hope, that's enough.

Therefore, until reasonable contact is resumed, with lawful excuse I will continue to communicate with my daughter publicly, since there is no legal impediment precluding me from doing so.

Oh dear. He really doesn't know when to stop digging does he? Even with shit getting as real as it seems to have got he's still trying to make this about him, him and him.

[aesmith]

...and have not been served with a single court document, even though social services falsely claim they have been trying to serve me since the start.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if that translates as "I have refused to accept court documents because I'm trying the bury-your-head-in-the-sand method again" or "I have been served court documents but they don't conform to requirements I have pulled out of my arse".

Maybe it means he's just binned the documents unread. Remember how he to claimed documents not served on his on his missus ..
He points out that his wife has not been personally served with these proceedings. In so far as documents were posted to her he has removed them so as to ensure she did not receive them.