Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[longdog]

...got to get as much money before people wake up to the cold hard fact that both Michael's are a pair of indiots trying to make money off them

That happened a long while ago hence the endlessly delayed premiere.

[Bones]

Good Old Michael, clearly demonstrating that he knows nothing about mortgages or the applicable law

http://www.thebernician.net/tgbms-20-qu ... e-swindle/

3. Does a mortgage deed have to signed by a mortgagor in the presence of a witness, who must attest to the signature?

Yes, under section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

Not so fast there Mickey - You should know about Shah v Shah as it was raised in your own case, be a good little hobbit and stop ignoring it and misleading people

Shah v Shah & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 527 (10 April 2001)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/527.html

33. Having considered the wording of section 1 in the context of its purpose and the policy consideration which apply to deeds, I am unable to detect a statutory intention totally to exclude the operation of an estoppel in relation to the application of the section or to exclude it in present circumstances. The section does not exclude an approach such as that followed by Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson in TSB. For the reasons I have given, the delivery of the document in my judgment involved a clear representation that it had been signed by the third and fourth defendants in the presence of the witness and had accordingly been validly executed by them as a deed. The defendant signatories well knew that it had not been signed by them in the presence of the witness, but they must be taken also to have known that the claimant would assume that it had been so signed and that the statutory requirements had accordingly been complied with so as to render it a valid deed. They intended it to be relied on as such and it was relied on. In laying down a requirement by way of attestation in section 1 of the 1989 Act, Parliament was not in my judgment excluding the possibility that an estoppel could be raised to prevent the signatory relying upon the need for the formalities required by the section. In my judgment, the judge was correct in permitting the estoppel to be raised in this case and in his conclusion that the claimant could bring an action upon the document as a deed.

10. Is it not also the case that no mortgage or charge can arise without a mortgage contract being signed by both parties, which must contain all terms in a single document?

Yes, as per the Court of Appeal decision in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib [1996].

Erm, there was no mortgage deed in the case you rely upon Mickey, it has no relevance to any of your claims

Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd v Green & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1389 (8 August 2001)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1389.html

17. In my judgment the case in United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib does not help Mr Green, because that was a case where there was no deed, unlike this case. There was in that case a purely informal equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. That had no effect because, as a contract, it was required to comply with section 2 and it did not comply. In my judgment His Honour Judge Jones was right to reject the submission that Mr Green made on the effect of section 2. Having referred to the point that it was unarguable, he said:

"Section two applies to a contract for the sale of an interest in land or a contract for some other disposition in relation to land. A contract to create a mortgage would obviously have to comply with section two and if it did not then it would not be a valid contract.

However, in this case there was no contract for the mortgage, there was simply the execution of the mortgage deed. That mortgage deed is a mortgage deed. It is not a contract to create a mortgage. I need really say no more than that about it."

18. He went on to refer to United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib, and correctly concluded that it did not assist Mr Green's case, as it was only concerned with the creation of an equitable charge and there was no deed in that case. I agree with the reasons given by His Honour Judge Jones. It follows that this point would not succeed on an appeal and therefore there is no point in my granting permission to appeal on that point.

Good to see even the freetards over on EFOTB are waking up to his BS

[Bones]

Anyone know how the London and Manchester premiers went ?

I have only seen 1 post about a great turn out for the London one - However, that was posted before the actual screening, so a home goal there

[getoutofdebtfools]

The twat tweets...

There are 11.2 million British people with illegal mortgages. Where will you be on #TGBMS day? https://www.a-fp.net/cinema-on-demand-box-office/ … #TGBMSDay

https://twitter.com/TheBernician

[TheNewSaint]

https://www.a-fp.net/cinema-on-demand-box-office/

Back in the early days of Dilbert (and dot-coms), there was a storyline where Wally takes venture capital to create an Internet startup company. His plan was to be the dominant Internet source for tuna sandwiches. If you buy one, you have to come pick it up. "Cinema on Demand" is exactly that business model.

http://dilbert.com/strip/1999-01-16

[Bones]

The twat tweets...

There are 11.2 million British people with illegal mortgages. Where will you be on #TGBMS day? https://www.a-fp.net/cinema-on-demand-box-office/ … #TGBMSDay

https://twitter.com/TheBernician

Strikes me as a desperate attempt at a cash grab - Hopefully before the truth comes out - still no news on Michael's claims of success at the property chamber

So desperate are they now that they have to use a review written by Tobe Hayden (aka Tobe Leigh) - being the person that set up a facebook page to promote the claims made by the two Michaels, to support their film (just a little biased then)

[aesmith]

.. still no news on Michael's claims of success at the property chamber

That would the victory he was expecting on 11th Aug 2016? The one whose strident announcement has now been deleted from the thread Win for Michael O'Bernicia! (Presumably Tom didn't notice the full post was quoted elsewhere in the thread)

[Bones]

.. still no news on Michael's claims of success at the property chamber

That would the victory he was expecting on 11th Aug 2016?

lol

He has been caliming this victory ever few months now for the last 3 years. Usually pops up whenever he wants to sell tickets for his movie. Yet he is never able to actually provide any evidence to show that he has won anything (maybe a game of conkers as a kid)

[TheNewSaint]

So desperate are they now that they have to use a review written by Tobe Hayden (aka Tobe Leigh) - being the person that set up a facebook page to promote the claims made by the two Michaels, to support their film (just a little biased then)

And all he did was damn it with faint praise:

Great turnout, excellent production, marvelous response, not to be missed

"Excellent production" is the only actual comment about the movie. And it isn't much to say about a simple documentary.

It really does appear that we have a barnstormer on our hands

Then why can't you rent a theater, you broke-ass chump? Why must you shill advanced tickets to yet another "premiere" that probably won't even take place?

[exiledscouser]

.. still no news on Michael's claims of success at the property chamber

That would the victory he was expecting on 11th Aug 2016? The one whose strident announcement has now been deleted from the thread Win for Michael O'Bernicia! (Presumably Tom didn't notice the full post was quoted elsewhere in the thread)

The strident and triumphant first post of that thread introducing us to MoB's total victory was written by none other than by old TC himself. What he originally posted is now gone as it now reads as follows;

It then says "last edited by tommc on Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total". That would be about the time he fell out with and said his farewells to Goodf.

[Bones]

The property chambers decisions have now been updated until 21 December 2016. Not even a sniff of the lost hobbit's win - case never decided upon by the property chamber, as he had previously claimed

[Bones]

The property chambers decisions have now been updated until 21 December 2016. Not even a sniff of the lost hobbit's win - case never decided upon by the property chamber, as he had previously claimed

Now been updated until 30 December 2016 and yep you guessed it, not a single case relating to the lost hobbit

[Bones]

Looks like the national release of the movie has fallen flat - only a few days to go and no more posts to advertise it.

I guess, it took a hit in ticket sales as 50 shades is out and we all know how the freeman like to hurt and punish each other

[TheNewSaint]

That's yet another problem with the cinema-on-demand model: there has to be some demand.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Well yesterday was the premier of his mortgage expose, none other than TGBMS day!

Strangely he hasn't mentioned it on his Twatter account.

I wonder how many million it will take it's first week?

[Bones]

No doubt in the coming days, we will see posts such as "amazing turnout", "great movie" and the usual rubbish

[TheNewSaint]

Yeah, because when you're promoting a movie, you want to wait several days to release any news about it. Geez, these people are incompetent.

I wonder how many of the 24 promised locations actually got a screening. I would set the over-under at 0.5.

[Bones]

Well the decisions of the Land Registration Division of the First Tier Tribunal have now been updated until the end of January. Still not a sniff of the victory claimed bt Michael

[aesmith]

Are we holding our breath, should be due just about now ...

Michael O'Bernicia‏ @TheBernician
Massive news about my family's long-running legal battle with Bank of Scotland is due within the next 72 hours. #TGBMS #GameChanger
5:05 AM - 23 Jun 2017

Mr White‏ @SoccerNights
Fingers crossed eh! Can the establishment let you win??

Michael O'Bernicia‏ @TheBernician
Our adversaries were beaten long ago. What we are on the brink of witnessing is the establishment being forced to submit to the facts.

[MaritalArtist]

So he lost his appeal, proving the system is corrupt. Another big win!!!!!!11!!!!

"The judge presided over another #miscarriageofjustice to prevent us from establishing a #remedy for all #dispossessed #mortgagors. #TGBMS"

https://twitter.com/TheBernician/status ... 0795284482