Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[Siegfried Shrink]

For those who doubt the veracity of the allegation that the banks pretend to lend money created by the deposit of their customers’ promissory notes,

I have not been following this one, but I see he is an adherent of the banks do not lend money theory.

This simple question might be, "Did you borrow a shed load of money and have you paid it back?"

I suspect the bald answers are Yes and NO.

This all must have racked up at least a Crawford in costs.

[The Observer]

No, the bald answers would be "no" and "no."

The reason for the first "no" would be that the moron is going to argue that the bank could not have loaned him money that belonged to them - they loaned him imaginary money that they created out of thin air. Ipso facto, it is not possible to be a loan since it really did not belong to them. If it had been a "real" loan, they would have handed him crisp bank or treasury notes that belonged to them. Instead they provided a letter that claimed that they had provided the proceeds of the loan to the seller or the bank of the seller or the bank that held the note on the property. Or maybe they just created a debit to his bank account, which again was an electronic transaction that just created "money" out of thin air.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I cannot see that argument gaining much traction, yet this fiasco appears to have lasted almost as long as Jarndyce V Jarndyce.

[The Observer]

I cannot see that argument gaining much traction, yet this fiasco appears to have lasted almost as long as Jarndyce V Jarndyce.

Can you name any FOTL/sovrun argument that has gained much traction - to the point that any magistrate had to spend more than a couple of hours of giving it full and due consideration before remanding it to the dustbin of frivolousness?

[Burnaby49]

I cannot see that argument gaining much traction, yet this fiasco appears to have lasted almost as long as Jarndyce V Jarndyce.

A touch of exaggeration in that comment wouldn't you say? Jarndyce V Jarndyce had been going on for many generations before Bleak House even started. So far this case has lasted (I think it was mentioned) seventeen years. It's not even out of diapers by Jarndyce terms. Maybe in another couple of decades we can debate if it's approaching its teen years yet.

[notorial dissent]

Isn't he still supposed to be doing public service road cleanup or some such?

[SoLongCeylon]

For those who doubt the veracity of the allegation that the banks pretend to lend money created by the deposit of their customers’ promissory notes,

I have not been following this one, but I see he is an adherent of the banks do not lend money theory.

This simple question might be, "Did you borrow a shed load of money and have you paid it back?"

I suspect the bald answers are Yes and NO.

This all must have racked up at least a Crawford in costs.

In so far as I try to follow what MOB is on about ( arguing the £2.5m of mortgages they took out to invest in property were void on a technicality ) there is no way he would be taking this stance if the properties were performing as they should and producing a comfortable income over and above interest payments ( ignore capital repayment for now ). What happened here I gather is his Father set up a loan facility with the bank in order to invest in property, things went ok until the credit crunch during which they became the victim of having borrowed too much and not able to service the debt. Repossessions followed.
Since then MOB has been thrashing around the Courts failing to get Judges to see his point of view.

He does write his blogs as if he expects there to be thousands of people throughout this land who are actually interested in his failed experiment with capitalism.

[SoLongCeylon]

Michael's won again...........

http://www.thebernician.net/the-beginning-of-the-end/

I am, once more, the bearer of glad tidings for every one of Britain’s eleven million registered mortgage holders, which might well herald the beginning of the end for institutionalised mortgage fraud on these disunited isles.

Today, the trustees of my family’s property trust received written confirmation from the Land Registry that we have shown grounds for every mortgage held over the trust’s properties by Bank of Scotland at the start of our dispute in June 2010 to be removed from the Charges Register retrospectively, on the basis that we have produced witness statements which prove, on the balance of probabilities, that none the mortgage deeds were properly witnessed, in breach of section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.



In addition and in any event, we have also demonstrated with verified accounting evidence that Bank of Scotland has claimed at least £2.15M from the trustees in completely fictitious mortgage arrears; and as a consequence, the trust’s debt to the bank [if one actually existed] was paid off no later than the 21st of October 2013, which was nine months before HHJ Behrens ruled in the High Court at Leeds that the debt for still due and outstanding, when he also declared that, whilst the trustees had proven that one of the mortgages was void for breaching section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, the bank was still entitled to a charge over the property concerned, which was then illegally created and registered without the consent or signatures of the trustees.

That void and illegal mortgage, along with all the others, is now set to be removed from the Charges Register on the same ground the first was canceled; and because the trustees were entitled to have every one of those mortgages discharged at least nine months before the now retired Behrens presided over the bank’s fraudulent claim against the trustees.



In more simplistic terms, the only argument the bank has relied upon since the first void mortgage was proven to be illegal in July 2014 has now been obliterated by irrefutable evidence and the Land Registry now has the statutory power to grant all our applications for the retrospective rectification of the register, without an order of her majesty’s courts.

Not only does the Land Registrar have authority to act as if Behrens judgment was never made [save for the the summary judgment he gave to the trustees on the section 1(3) point], she also does not require the consent of Bank of Scotland to grant the applications, under Schedule 4, sections 5 and 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002, which state:

Alteration otherwise than pursuant to a court order
5 The registrar may alter the register for the purpose of—
(a)correcting a mistake,
(b)bringing the register up to date,
(c)giving effect to any estate, right or interest excepted from the effect of registration, or
(d)removing a superfluous entry.
6(1)This paragraph applies to the power under paragraph 5, so far as relating to rectification.
(2)No alteration affecting the title of the proprietor of a registered estate in land may be made under paragraph 5 without the proprietor’s consent in relation to land in his possession unless—
(a)he has by fraud or lack of proper care caused or substantially contributed to the mistake, or
(b)it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made.
The effect of these applications being granted, upon submission of a final statement of grounds, will be that every mortgagor who signed a mortgage deed without a witness being present at the moment of execution can make an AP1 application the Land Registry to cancel their illegal mortgage, relying upon Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014] and our successful cancellations of the void and illegal mortgages by the Land Registry.

Whilst the applications have not yet been granted and there is always a possibility the rigged system will find some way to affect the outcome, my instinct insists that the beginning of the end of our seemingly interminable battle for justice over fraudulent mortgages is finally upon us and that there is nobody left on the battlefield who is capable of preventing the success of our applications.


Anyone able to translate ?

[JimUk1]

Yes. He is talking complete nonsense and is trying to stay relevant.

[SteveUK]

But if I haven’t actually won this time, it’s not my fault

Whilst the applications have not yet been granted and there is always a possibility the rigged system will find some way to affect the outcome, my instinct insists that the beginning of the end of our seemingly interminable battle for justice over fraudulent mortgages is finally upon us and that there is nobody left on the battlefield who is capable of preventing the success of our applications.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Whilst the applications have not yet been granted

My money is on the rigged system.

Actually, my money really is on the rigged system since I have cash in the Bank of Scotland, and thus a hair of a dog in this fight.

[notorial dissent]

Just out of curiosity, who are these alleged trustees who can't seem to do a simple thing like get a mortgage deed properly witnessed? Methinks, that if he wants to sue someone, it should mayhaps be the trustees.

[Penny Wise]

Just out of curiosity, who are these alleged trustees who can't seem to do a simple thing like get a mortgage deed properly witnessed? Methinks, that if he wants to sue someone, it should mayhaps be the trustees.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html

(1) JOHN THOMAS WAUGH
(2) KATHLEEN WAUGH
(3) TIMOTHY ROHAN GRAY
(4) IAIN ERNEST WILLIAMS


Two of them are his parents. imho this is more about his inheritance than anything to do with helping his fellow man.

I have lost count of the number of times, he has claimed victory.

[Penny Wise]

As a reminder this was posted by our good friend Tom Crawfraud on GOODF in April 2015

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 642091bed7

Hi all,

This Film will help so many men and women under threat from EVICTION
please come along and learn from Micheal's in depth documentary.

Please read below.

Tom.



When one is playing chess with a self-deluding adversary, with whom one has been engaged in a war of attrition, he will very often be blind to the fact that no matter what he does, he is in check-mate and does not have any move available to him which would not result in his defeat.

This analogy can be neatly applied to my family’s long running dispute with Bank of Scotland, who still can’t quite comprehend how this indeed has transpired, given that the crown house of Rothschild’s courts are rigged so heavily in their favour. Nevertheless, the facts now emphatically speak for themselves.

This morning we received confirmation from the Land Registry that the illegal mortgage which was declared void in the high court on July 21st 2014, is now being removed from the charges register by the Chief Land Registrar, upon the order of the property chamber.

We have another nine void mortgages which are nullities on almost identical grounds, all of which the Land Registry has had applications to cancel since the spring of 2013. We also now have the material evidence required for a stay of criminal proceedings for fraud and trespass with conversion against the bank and its receivers to be lifted, which will result in our private prosecution proceeding to trial.

The implications are somewhat bleak for the entire conveyancing industry, whilst being a game-changer for 11.2 million void mortgagors; since this is, to the very best of my knowledge, the first time a mortgagor has succeeded in having an illegal mortgage canceled as being void after establishing that point of law in high court proceedings, which is binding upon all subsequent mortgage-related proceedings.

I therefore humbly urge any and all void mortgagors who have it within their means to attend the test screening and banksterbusters conference this Sunday, the details of which can be found at the link below:

Test Screening & Banksterbusters Conference

Whilst this also seems the perfect moment to release the new teaser trailer for the forthcoming shockumentary film, The Great British Mortgage Swindle, which can be viewed here:

New TGBMS Teaser-Trailer

Please share this post with any and all people who might well benefit from the information. The tide has most definitely turned.

[AndyPandy]

Just out of curiosity, who are these alleged trustees who can't seem to do a simple thing like get a mortgage deed properly witnessed? Methinks, that if he wants to sue someone, it should mayhaps be the trustees.

They're his parents aren't they? They signed the mortgage deed but he's claiming because they weren't properly witness the trustees (his parents) the mortgages were void and they were not liable for making the repayments, they shouldn't have been bankrupted and the properties seized.

[Wakeman52]

After having read HHJ Behrens' judgement, I think that straws are being grasped for in vain. This point in the conclusion is most relevant:

Para 88 (1): "that there is no realistically arguable defence to the claim for the sums due under the facility letter and the Bank is entitled to summary judgment in respect of the sums claimed."

Whether or not the signatures were witnessed was not deemed relevant by His Honour to the fact that the Trustees signed the documents; to wit: (para 88 (3)): "the Legal Charge was, nonetheless, effective as an equitable charge."

This is also a telling point in reaching that conclusion (para 85): "Legal Charge [..} was not executed as a Deed and thus did not take effect as a legal charge. However it was signed by the parties and did contain all the terms that had been agreed and thus took effect as an equitable mortgage. "

Mr Waugh, your parents lost. The straw is para 88(2): "that the Trustees are not estopped from relying on the defects in the execution of the Legal Charge and that Mr Waugh is entitled to a declaration to that effect" & it is blown away by the rest.

[The Seventh String]

Well I think Mr Waugh deserves a little credit for inventiveness and honesty.

From the court's judgement-

4 Claim under the Facility letter.

On the face of it there would appear to be little prospect of a successful defence. As Lloyd LJ has pointed out all that the Bank have to do is to establish the loan, the demand, the failure to repay and the amount of the debt.

Mr Waugh has however suggested that there are a number of defences:

Failure to serve his wife.

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. In fact Mrs Waugh has been validly served with the claim form and the application for summary judgment. Service was by first class post addressed to the correct residential address of Mrs Waugh. Appropriate certificates of service were filed

Oh dear. Chalk up another victory.

[Hercule Parrot]

Well I think Mr Waugh deserves a little credit for inventiveness and honesty.

He wasn't being honest at all. His claim to have concealed the proceedings from his wife was a lie, designed to engineer a loophole defence and welsh on a lawfully-owed liability. It always amuses me when theses parasites refer to being in honour, when their daily behaviour demonstrates nothing of the sort.

[The Seventh String]

I’d just have loved to see the look on the judge’s face when Waugh smugly explained he had cunningly intercepted the documents sent to Mrs Waugh for the exact purpose of claiming in court that she hadn’t been correctly served with them.

Most people would not have owned up to it and feigned innocence, because most people aren’t stupid enough to pull a stunt like that in the first place, and if they do aren’t stupid enough to admit what they’d done and why.

[grixit]

In the US that would be both mail tampering and obstruction, possibly at the felony level.