Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[littleFred]

Michael of Bernicia, aka Michael Waugh, aka MOB has been doing the speaking circuit for some years now. YouTube has many interviews and lectures where he tells us that mortgages are frauds, banks never lend real money, we can pay them off with promissory notes, and more of the usual. He speaks fluently, intelligently, and humorously, and quotes from legislation apparently without notes.

(Bernicia is, of course, the name of an old kingdom in what is now the UK. See wiki.)

The SovCit-iverse recently rejoiced when the High Court confirmed that bank mortgages are frauds, eg Mortgage Deed Declared Void High Court. Legal blogs have covered the same story but spinning it somewhat differently, eg Major bank in mortgage mix-up, August 2014: Banking Update, Can a chargor be estopped from challenging the validity of an incorrectly executed legal charge?, and Hope for improperly executed charge!

In essence: The Nelson Trust (not to be confused with any other trusts with the same name) developed properties. Or, in Michael's words, it is "my family's private property trust". It borrowed loadsofmoney from the Bank of Scotland, agreeing to pay it back by a certain date. This included a bridging load to buy Asquorn House, and the trustees signed a charge on this property, but their signatures weren't attested. When the bank formally asked for its money back, the trust wouldn't or couldn't pay. The bank called in the receivers and claimed the trust owed the bank approx £2m.

If you prefer to hear from the horse's mouth, see Bailii: [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch). This contains a nugget ignored by the legal bloggers: Michael tried to pay the £2m owed with a £3m promissory note. Why the 50% extra? Perhaps Michael was feeling generous. According to one of his videos, Michael repeatedly offered to reissue the promissory note but the bank refused it. Possibly because Michael had a lien on the bank for £200m so the bank would be £199m down on the deal.

In the references cited above, Mr and Mrs Waugh are Michael's parents. Michael himself is not a trustee. (But he might be a beneficiary: "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if my parents created a trust to benefit me, and the trust borrowed £2m and never had to pay it back?")

The only winning point for the trustees was that the bank wasn't allowed to estop them from denying the validity of the charge. The court ruled that the equitable mortgage was valid, the trust owed the money to the bank, etc.

More recently, Michael claims the bank has withdrawn its objection to having the charge removed, which paves the way for the trust to sue the Land Registry, the bank, the bank's executives and lawyers, the receivers, and the trust's lawyers. Michael has sometimes exagerated his successes just a teensy-weensy bit.

In his videos and writings, Michael seems to sincerely believe that banks must accept home-made promissory notes as cash. So, if he wants to buy a house, why doesn't he offer the vendor a massive prom note as payment instead of going through all the hassle of borrowing from a bank? I dunno.

Oh, yeah, and the Gregorian calendar is wrong. It's 40 years out, apparently. This year is really numbered 2054. According to Michael. I'm sure he's right and everyone else is wrong.

And, talking of junk, he didn't register the birth of his child because if he did, under the Government Annuities Act 1929 the government would create an annuity under that child's name and if he didn't claim the money, the gubbermint would declare the child dead after 7 years and and claim the money for itself, for its war chest. Of course, the Act doesn't say that, but even if it did then why wouldn't Michael claim this free gift for his child? He swiftly moves on before his audience can ask.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot to mention: he has created Universal Community Trust (UCT), a wonderful all-loving hippy thing. (I do like hippies, honest.) This won't use cash or banks or taxes or usury or wars or anything. Everyone will get free credit. Energy will come from free and clean sources instead of fossil fuels. And so on. Sounds good to me.

[littleFred]

Something else about Michael: it's all the fault of the Rothschilds "and their agents". They are to blame for all the revolutions since 1815, and probably before, and everything else that is wrong in the world. In a two-hour discussion split into eight pieces, Michael and Vinny Eastwood egg each other on about how awful the Rothschilds "and their agents" are.

On income tax: Michael was self-employed, so had to declare his income every year. Then he was no longer employed at all, and claimed to have no income, so didn't have to re-declare this every year. This is totally standard in the UK income tax system, that economically inactive people only have to say so once, reducing the admin burden. But Michael has to dress this up that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) were so cowed by his SovCit junk that they agreed he was no longer a taxpayer. He thinks that giving his time away for free and receiving no-strings donations means he is not legally liable for income tax. He is, of course, mistaken. If the HMRC suspect Michael has undeclared income, even in the form of donations, they are likely to hassle him.

[Flying Daggers]

Oh Mikey has not been telling everyone the fall story has he

He has been posting left right and center on every site going about his success in the judgement of the void deed. What he doesn't seem so keen on telling people is that later on the same day, another judgement was made

http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/aug-14/4586333349

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh (No.2)

[2014] EWHC 2835 (Ch)

Mortgage proceedings - finality of judgment - ability to re-open - order for execution of charge under s 39(1) Senior Courts Act 1981

Despite having handed down judgment, the judge acceded to an application by a litigant in person to reconsider the contents, but then dismissed the application. The court went on to grant relief on the bank’s application.

In Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (reported in the July 2014 update) it was held that a registered charge which did not contain an attestation clause could not take effect as a legal charge by estoppel and would be rectified, but it could still take effect as an equitable charge. On handing down judgment , W asked the judge to effectively reconsider his judgment, and BoS applied for an order requiring the bank’s charge to be perfected under the mortgage conditions by the execution of a legal charge.

Since W’s application was before the judge before he had handed down judgment, it was felt appropriate to consider the points he raised. The main point was that the legal charge was not enforceable as a contract to create a legal charge or as an equitable mortgage however the legal charge had been signed by both parties and complied with s 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. W also challenged the account balance but the mortgage conditions provided that in the absence of manifest error any determination by the bank was conclusive and binding. There was no realistic prospect of challenge. Next W wanted to rely on a letter which suggested that [W] may not be personally liable for the debt, but this was insufficient to give rise to en estoppel. Accordingly the judge was unwilling to reconsider his judgment.

On the bank’s application, the court made an order under s 39(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 that in default of execution of the charge by W, it shall be executed by a District Judge of the High Court, Chancery Division.

This is one of those decisions that no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time but was bound to cause problems. After helpfully directing himself that there is only a limited power of the court to reconsider a judgment before it is handed down, the judge nonetheless decided that even after judgment had been handed down, it would be appropriate on an application by a litigant in person to reconsider it. Note to litigants in person: don’t rely on this!

[Flying Daggers]

Despite all the claims of success on his website

http://self-realisation.com/category/eq ... erbusters/

The property is currently up for sale and the brochure says that estate agents are acting on the instructions of the LPA Receivers

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-p ... 48436.html

[Flying Daggers]

Oh, yeah, almost forgot to mention: he has created Universal Community Trust (UCT), a wonderful all-loving hippy thing. (I do like hippies, honest.) This won't use cash or banks or taxes or usury or wars or anything. Everyone will get free credit. Energy will come from free and clean sources instead of fossil fuels. And so on. Sounds good to me.

I wonder how the tenants of Ashquorn House paid their rent ?

I am guessing his family trust were all too happy to accept cash

[Hercule Parrot]

I wonder how the tenants of Ashquorn House paid their rent ?
I am guessing his family trust were all too happy to accept cash

That's the single, most glaring hypocrisy of the FMOTL freeloaders. They claim that a promissory note has value and should be accepted, but they would scream the roof down if they received their wages in that form. If they were selling a house or car they wouldn't accept a promissory note, they would want payment by cash, bank transfer... actual money.

[PeanutGallery]

It would seem that Michael O'Bernicia has decided to make his mark on the movie business. According to Tom Crawford on GOODF Michael is planning a screening of his movie.

It promises to be absolutely riveting and not at all like the last time he hawked it around. This has 50 minutes of new footage! Featuring the terror and genocide of eviction (because y'know, not paying the mortgage is the same as being forced on a death march across Armenia or sent to the sort of place where work won't make you free).

Oh and if you want to see it you are required to gift £10 to the 'intrepid anarcho film makers'. Who are planning on releasing their film at the Cannes Market (although they don't say if they plan to send it to the Marches Forville, Gambetta or La Bocca market, they might be rather optimistically thinking of the film festival although they'd need to overcome the hurdle of getting it selected for the festival by the board of directors who are rather picky about what does and doesn't make the cut).

Of course the film has a website, which I am sure is chock full of hidden gems and lunacy take a look it's here.

[Arthur Rubin]

... Who are planning on releasing their film at the Cannes Market (although they don't say if they plan to send it to the Marches Forville, Gambetta or La Bocca market, they might be rather optimistically thinking of the film festival although they'd need to overcome the hurdle of getting it selected for the festival by the board of directors who are rather picky about what does and doesn't make the cut).

They'll probably just show it on a nearby beach.

[Arthur Rubin]

I was alluding to some fringe pseudo-documentary which the producer said was "shown at Cannes", while, in reality, it was shown at a beach during the Cannes film festival. I suppose Michael could show it at a market in Cannes....

[Pottapaug1938]

In 2007, my son had a short film he made shown at the Cannes Film Festival -- though it was not at the main event, but rather in a theater off to the side devoted to short films. Thus, Dan could truly say that his film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival (where he also interned); but he never made much of the fact because he didn't want to make his achievement seem like more than it was.

[Arthur Rubin]

Seems legitimate to me. It was reviewed by a Cannes Film Festival Board.

[Fmotlgroupie]

Ever since this thread started I've been trying to think up a decent "bretwalda citizen" joke, and still no luck

[Bones]

For anyone following the events with Michael's progress, the below are extracts from the title deed for the property involved.

They show the legal charge being replaced with a unilateral notice of an equitable charge





Whilst, I have not checked it recently, I presume shortly it will be updated with the new legal charge granted by the Court to Bank of Scotland

[Bones]

Did Michael's Bank Buster epic get it's Cannes Premier in the end ?

[Bones]

For anyone following the events with Michael's progress, the below are extracts from the title deed for the property involved.

They show the legal charge being replaced with a unilateral notice of an equitable charge





Whilst, I have not checked it recently, I presume shortly it will be updated with the new legal charge granted by the Court to Bank of Scotland

Just correcting this post as it won't allow me to edit it

[littleFred]

Did Michael's Bank Buster epic get it's Cannes Premier in the end ?

Yes. See http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/ ... -05-13.pdf

[Bones]

Did Michael's Bank Buster epic get it's Cannes Premier in the end ?

Yes. See http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/ ... -05-13.pdf

I admit I am surprised

[Bones]

Did Michael's Bank Buster epic get it's Cannes Premier in the end ?

Yes. See http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/ ... -05-13.pdf

I admit I am surprised

I wonder if Michael was to busy in Cannes to make it to the Court to hear the verdict

[IDIOT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTVcZRy_i_4

[slowsmile]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTVcZRy_i_4

Is O'Bonkers doing an impersonation of Joe Cocker c1969?