Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[TheNewSaint]

I could be wrong but my guess is that the only people who are going to pay to watch this "epic step forward" will be people who have had their homes repossessed. At the end of the film what happens then?

The filmmakers are probably hoping to follow the Loose Change model of finding an audience via viral distribution. But the subject matter is far too narrow for that. So it'll be more like the short, sad life of America: Freedom to Fascism, minus the star power of Guy Who Once Got A Credit On Trading Places.

O'Bernicia does match Russo in one regard, though: he has his very own dubious claim of being screened at Cannes. (Aaron Russo rented space on the beach; TGBMS seems to have been screened somewhere in the French city.)

[aesmith]

O'Bernicia does match Russo in one regard, though: he has his very own dubious claim of being screened at Cannes. (Aaron Russo rented space on the beach; TGBMS seems to have been screened somewhere in the French city.)

Do you think it was actually screened? They say "launched" but the whole thing smells of vapourware considering that was over a year ago.

[TheNewSaint]

Do you think it was actually screened? They say "launched" but the whole thing smells of vapourware considering that was over a year ago.

Good observation.

Especially since the film later required massive edits for some reason. If this Cannes screening did happen, you'd think there would be interest in the "Cannes version" of the film, and how it differs from the current version. You'd think the edits O'Bernicia spoke of would raise questions in the minds of people invested in this film: who demanded them, and why? Especially for a film that purports to call out government behavior. None of them seem to be paying it any mind. They all question the validity of their mortgage, but don't question things that beg for further explanation.

In any case, they certainly weren't part of the Cannes Film Festival.

[notorial dissent]

I guess my question is who would actually pay to see that twaddle, particularly as the crowd he's aiming at is probably pretty short of the ready as it were?

[aesmith]

Expect posts on Goofy asking how to avoid paying.

[PeanutGallery]

I doubt that, if anything people on GOODF will quite happily cough up a small amount to see a film that will reassure them that everything is wrong in the world and they don't have to pay debts. In fact Peter of England has shown that you can milk these idiots for a small amount on a regular basis and even recruit some die hard supporters all of whom will defend their decision to send you money for sweet fa.

They will happily pay for this, they just won't happily pay their debts.

[Bones]

My personal view is that this documentary is nothing but a way for O'Bernica and O'Dercia to make as much money as they can from those that are vunerable and/or in desperate situations.

This documentary has had so many previews that I have lost count... With people either being charged to see it each time or only being able to see it after they have made a donation.

Each time cash has to be paid.. Whilst O'Bernica tried to use a promisary note, unsuccessfully to repay one of his parents mortgages, he will not accept one himself as payment to watch his documentary.

Both O'Bernica and O'Dercia are experts when it comes to mortgages... experts when comes to losing properties that is...

O'Dercia lost his own and that of one of his friends... Whilst O'Bernica helped his parents to lose an undisclosed number of properties.

Least we forget, both played pivitol roles in Tom losing his case and then his home.

Not really the kind of people that should be offering advice.

However, to show that the documentary is just another money making scheme devised by these two Freetard Guru wannabes.... If they were genuinally interested in helping people and drawing attention to what they claim.. Why don't they just upload the documentary to youtube and let everyone watch it around the world for free...

[littleFred]

I think the two Michaels are trying to break into the commercial documentary market, along the lines of Michael Moore and John Pilger.

So they bought a tripod and lights, and have put some thought into their filming and editing. But, unlike Moore and Pilger, they have nothing interesting to say beyond the usual claptrap about mortgages being fraudulent.

(I speak from a position of ignorance, having seen trailers but not any full version of the film. But I suppose some people have seen it, and their silence speaks volumes.)

What we have is a failure to launch. After many attempts at hype, they have discovered that almost nobody wants to watch it.

This doesn't surprise me. They have no investigative journalism skills, nor do they provide entertaining insight into people's lives, or point-and-laugh reality TV. They provide earnest whinges and deadpan lies, and the market for these is very small.

[notorial dissent]

However, to show that the documentary is just another money making scheme devised by these two Freetard Guru wannabes.... If they were genuinally interested in helping people and drawing attention to what they claim.. Why don't they just upload the documentary to youtube and let everyone watch it around the world for free...

Because then they couldn't scam any money out of them. I still can't imagine actually paying money to see this drivel when there is already tons of it on utubey for frees, which is what most of them like so much.

Bones, FWIW, I agree in total with you main comment on this.

I think W C Fields said it best, "You can't cheat an honest man" and "Never give a sucker an even break" and I would say those two are practitioners.

[Bones]

Not only are there no posts saying how great the documentary was... There doesn't appear to be any posts by anyone that actually went to see it at all...

No selfie pics at the cinema........

[notorial dissent]

Not if they actually had to pay for it themselves, would have stayed away in droves.

[aesmith]

Just doing some random googling for TGBMS turned up this thread where someone claims to have seen it in an earlier version 18 months ago .. https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=290609

Apparently the new version of the film was to have"a prescient, hypnotic and uplifting soundtrack, which at times has the feel of an urban Spaghetti Western.”

[SoLongCeylon]

Not only are there no posts saying how great the documentary was... There doesn't appear to be any posts by anyone that actually went to see it at all...

No selfie pics at the cinema........

From the website " The Rogue Male . Org " ( Michael O'Dreary's verbal diarrhea outlet ) someone has asked how the screen ing went:
http://roguemale.org/2016/10/04/plunder ... /#comments


Hello I hope the screening in Nottingham went well and the message gets known to more people.
Reply ↓

ROGUE MALE
(Post author)
November 7, 2016 at 11:50

Hi, Sal. Many thanks for the good wishes. Yes, it went well. Whatever anyone may say of the film, it demands to be seen since it has a quality that will draw people in on many levels and it does lay out the swindle in its entirety. For now, it will be screened in cinemas only via the Cinema on Demand platform which is being rolled out across these isles. People book their places in their town or city and we organise a screening once we have sufficient numbers to make it viable. Anyone who buys 10 tickets, gets one free.
Reply ↓


So, unless they sell enough tickets at other theatres to justify putting on a screening, this film will fizzle out despite it being eagerly anticipated and well received in Cannes. Without the film to endlessly promote, O'Dreary and O'Bollox don;t have much of an audience.

The End.

[TheNewSaint]

The TGBMS official website has no new information. Neither does their RSS feed or Twitter account. There are some new general tweets, but nothing about how the premiere went.

[TheNewSaint]

ROGUE MALE
For now, it will be screened in cinemas only via the Cinema on Demand platform which is being rolled out across these isles. People book their places in their town or city and we organise a screening once we have sufficient numbers to make it viable.

So, unless they sell enough tickets at other theatres to justify putting on a screening, this film will fizzle out despite it being eagerly anticipated and well received in Cannes. Without the film to endlessly promote, O'Dreary and O'Bollox don;t have much of an audience.

This is the America: Freedom to Fascism business model once again. Find a local community of freetards, rent out a theater, and make them promote it to other freetards. Surely you remember the resulting massive upswell of mainstream demand for the film.

I like how they call this "Cinema on Demand platform" as if this were some amazing new concept worthy of capital letters. All they're doing is renting out theater space for a screening, something most theaters will do for anyone willing to pay.

[notorial dissent]

I think it is the actually having to pay for it, in advance, thingy that will doom it to its well deserved obscurity. The community he is looking to feed off of is not only notoriously stupid and gullible, which is why he is going after them, but he forgets the other part of that, C H E A P. They aren't going to pay for something like this when it is the difference between a trip to the pub or paying for Michael O'Wah's egofest.

[LurkerRob]

A long interview with O'Bonkers.

https://raconteursnews.com/michael-ober ... eurs-news/

I've only got through 45 mins so far out of 154 and he hasn't got on to banking yet.

His failed career as a standup comic/script writer/director/producer .(It was a conspiracy against northeners).
9/11 conspiracy drivel,death threats
Blacklisting within film industry due to his views.(ie No one wanted to make his films).

[TheNewSaint]

A long interview with O'Bonkers.

https://raconteursnews.com/michael-ober ... eurs-news/

I've only got through 45 mins so far out of 154 and he hasn't got on to banking yet.

This is a major pet peeve of mine about freedmen/conspiracy filmmakers and journalists: why do all these self-proclaimed raconteurs have no concept of editing? Their productions just ramble on forever, making no attempt to focus on the important or interesting parts of it. No one wants to watch an interview for 154 solid minutes, even if it were with Jesus Christ after the Second Coming.

I suspect O'Bernicia's movie has the same flaw. IMDB says it's 106 minutes, a typical length for a motion picture, but there isn't 106 minutes' worth of video in the subject matter.

[Bones]

Bearing in mind that both Micky O'B and Mickey O'D consistantly lose in court when it comes to mortgages, with Mickey O'B losing his parents properties (and Tom's) and Mickey O'D losing two of his own and those of "friends", I am surprised that the freetards are still behind them so much..

Now even a new fb group has been opened to promote their false claims of success

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1289423447765721/

Description
This is a group brought together of the back from the extensive time, effort, energy and knowledge of Michael O'Deira and Michael O'Bernicia interaction with the Land Registry and Banksters.

They have carved a path and it is now up to us the people to stand together and enforce our rights.

Some interesting claims.... You can't give a bank a legal charge before you own the property.

Easy to debunk, a charge until it is registered is not a legal charge. When you buy a house, the deeds are put in your name and it is then that the charge you gave to your lender is registered and becomes a legal charge.

Another claim, when you sign a deed to grant a charge, the witness must be present otherwise it is void.

Again, very easy to debunk, as it was confirmed in Micheal O'B's case that this claim was rubbish.

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html

Shah v Shah

69. Shah v Shah concerned the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of £1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the presence of a witness. In the event, although the "witness" signed shortly after the defendants, he did so without having been present when they signed. When, therefore, the claimant brought proceedings against them, the defendants disputed the claim on the basis that the "deed" had not been validly executed. The Court of Appeal, however, concluded that the defendants were estopped from denying that they had signed the document in the witness's presence. Pill LJ, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, said (at paragraph 33) that "the delivery of the document … involved a clear representation that it had been signed by the … defendants in the presence of the witness and had, accordingly, been validly executed by them as a deed"

They also forget Micheal lost this case and that his parents were liable for the money

[littleFred]

They have carved a path and it is now up to us the people to stand together and enforce our rights.

Oh dear. That won't end well.

My theory is that the two Michaels (and Tom and Guy and Mr Ebert), having failed, need to validate themselves. They do this by self-praise, and seeking praise from others, and leading others down the same self-destructive path they have trodden.

Yes, they have carved a path. Yes, they want others to follow. Like lemmings.