What a mess this case is.
You truly know when you've hit rock bottom when you feel the only alternative is the ExpertinFA. But Paul Michaels seems to have swallowed the pill of woo well before their paths ever crossed. When your correspondence with the bank starts;
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL: NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
well, we've been here before and can have a pretty good idea both of what is to follow and the mindset of the writer.
In September 2017 Paul is writing to his main creditor at Lloyds paying off his debts with a
promissory note for the whole of his debt (£1,342,749.07) "Signed in Blue Ink" and allegedly witnessed by a solicitor at Vinson and Elkins of London, someone who
does exist it appears and who really is a qualified solicitor but why she would choose to put her signature to this document, well, I just don't know.
Paul says that the note is in "payment and final settlements for the outstanding amount" but a closer look at the document shows that he is offering monthly instalments of £1,350 which will take **ahem** 82 years to pay off. Given that Paul is 51 at the moment that'll never fly, even if the bank were stupid enough to accept it. The letter goes on to say that if the PN isn't accepted - or returned - then the bank have agreed that the matter is "paid in full".
There is another PN in the same document for a debt with The Mortgage Business of £605,520.00 with an identically worded (and witnessed) "Blue Ink" signature, this one says payments of £753 a month which should see this all sorted in 67 years time. I wonder whether the learned Ms. Woods at Vinson and Elkins knows that this nonsense has been posted publicly?
The letters end with the usual half english, half latin postscripts mumbling on about dishonour frivolity and Non Assumpsit. The bank through it's solicitors wrote back fairly sharpish, writing "
a promise to pay is not sufficient, our client requires actual payment".
Michaels appears to have been an LIP for some of the period (many years) this matter has been going on which has led to (in my view) an 'excess of indulgence', allowing matters to drift. Something to be said then for this approach? Sadly, it only delays the inevitable as TC, Neelu and Liz OTF Watson would attest.
When folk are writing to the Pope in their private financial matters you know it's all going to end badly. Here is Paul asking the Expert in FA where to direct his mailings so's the Pope gets to see them and can issue a motu proprio or some other Papal Bullshit in his favour;
Steve
Which official address do we use, to send our BOS case bundle to his Holiness?
His Holiness, Pope Francis PP. / 00120 Via del Pellegrino / Citta del Vaticano His Holiness Pope Francis / Apostolic Palace / Vatican City
His Holiness Pope Francis / Vatican City State, 00120
Regards Paul
The ExpertinFA wrote;
you can use any three
Is that because they go, respectively, to the father, the son and the Holy Ghost? I suspect there'll be no 'remedy' coming from the Holy See.
Who else can assist? Perhaps the Russkies to whom he complaints that (Lloyds BOS) have;
try to unlawfully steel (sic) our private estate which we have owned for 16 years
Most likely a "nyet comrade" there too given the preponderance for their 'connected' fellow-countrymen to acquire considerable 'private estates' and football (soccer) clubs in the UK. Paul has cast his net widely, even eliciting the assistance of the;
World Court in The Hague
which institution, he assures the ExpertinFA;
normally don’t deal with personal matters however given the matter is of serious public interest they have given me an email and postal address in order that we send FULL particulars of our grievance
The police, from North Yorks, Action Fraud and even the National Crime Agency have each firmly but politely advised that his issues are all civil rather than criminal.
They were clearly unaware then that Paul takes a decidedly unorthodox approach for paying for his utilities. Here he is in October last year (2017) haranguing nPower, advising;
It would appear that you may be in a spot of bother.
What for I hear you ask? It appears that the good utility company, fed up with a lack of payment broke in to the Whitby property, either to disconnect the supply or to fit a pre-paid meter. Paul reaches deep into the 'wallet of woo' to point out;
We DECLARE that our bill has been prepaid from our Trust, Birth Bond, or Treasury direct account. We are led to believe that you have been paid at least twice. We are researching whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have received payments on these amounts, or indeed whether they have been declared to HMRC. We have had discussions with their reporting and collections team. It is alleged that NPower and other utility companies are knowingly committing Fraud. Your actions and those associated with your companies accounting practices have been reported to the City of London Police National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, confirmed by this email which has been copied into them.
I think you have been led to believe a load of total bollocks but, each to his own. This, at least should make things a little clearer as to why the ExpertinFA has now become involved.
Paul thinks he can frighten his enemies into believing that the police are swinging into action even as he rattles his keyboard and to therefore back off; sadly, the cops are back to their doughnuts, having already advised "no crimes here lad'.
The matter has now reached eviction stage following a withering judgement by HHJ Raeside QC (note to the ExpertinFA -
a real QC) who, having heard the whole sorry tale concluded in a detailed judgement in March 2017 (but not handed down until October that year) that;
I therefore grant the claimant’s possession of Low Newbiggin House, Aislaby, Whitby, YO21 1TQ title number NYK256562.
Secondly, I am going to grant the claimant the outstanding monies under the mortgage
Was Paul happy with that conclusion? Err...no.
We the ‘Defendants’ as real live persons pleading their human and natural birth rights under common Law, do not accept the courts decisions as documented and provided to them and we GIVE NOTICE to the court that we will appeal and fight any formalisation of the same.
Paul also helpfully wrote that if HHJ Raeside (QC) should rule against him the judge himself would be in contempt of court. He was clearly very surprised when the judgement did indeed go against him. It appears that he had been represented by a very able Counsel up to that point (who clearly did his best with the cards he had been dealt) but it was back to Pro Se after this setback and an affidavit to stay the repossession proceedings. What's the basis of the appeal?
On the 15th September 2017, the defendants did deliver to the Claimants UK Head Of-fice namely Lloyds Banking Group, 25 Gresham Street London, EC2V 7HN, two Legal-ly binding payments for the debt under the Bills of Exchange act 1882, ‘Promissory Notes’ being officially verified and witnessed. (Annexure’s 7-12)
Furthermore;
the (defendants) have stated that if the original Promissory Notes are not returned with good reason for not accepting them, then the mortgage which is ‘Non Assumpsit’ will be considered settled in full and have a zero balance. The Promissory note has not been returned, the matter save for damages and losses and costs is now considered settled by the d’s.
To summarise;
We have been advised that a sale of our home by the Bank in ’short order’, would allow them to destroy the evidence not seen or requested by HHJ Raeside, relating to the origi-nal mortgage and Promissory Note, which will prove that the bank has been repaid for our mortgage agreement.
Another sure-fire winner before the appeal courts coming up but no, permission to appeal was refused by Lord Justive Newey under section 54(4) of the Access to Justive Act 1999.
Bugger.
The
Supreme Court similarly knocked him back.
It's the end of the road.
Thereafter follows a blizzard of FoI applications to all and sundry asking for a raft of material, some of which simply doesn't exist. What do you make of this demand made by Paul to the legal firm Eversheds demanding;
1. HHJ Raeside’s indemnity Bond number
2. The Leeds combined court Indemnity bond number
3. Bond Number of the Courtroom 15
4. Bond Number of the Clerk/s acting for HHJ Raeside
5. HHJ Raeside;s handwritten notes (wet ink) NOT Copies for both the trial on 7th and 8th
March 2017 and for the handing down of judgement hearing, dated the 3rd October
2017. in fact ALL notes pertaining to this case.
6. The handwritten notes of Recorder Walker for the pre trial hearing dated, 3rd March
2017 which was heard at the Leeds combined court.
7. A copy of the actual court room tape recordings from the above pre-hearing trial and
for the handing down of judgement hearing.
8. Records and copies of any and all emails pertaining to this case.
9. Proof of when and by whom that the court fee for the original possession claim was
paid
10. Confirmation (forms date/stamp of the approving officers) of the official handing over
of this matter from the magistrates court in Middlesborough to Scarborough to Leeds
combined court and then to the chancery division.
11. ANY and all other records that could or would’ve any influence or effect over this case.
This particular band-wagon seems to be popular with the likes of Rekha and TC who see it as a way of reversing adverse court judgements just by asking for material, the majority of which they would not be entitled to in any event and which would assist them not one little bit even if they were. So expect to read or hear about the eviction of the Michaels shortly.
So far, the involvement of the ExpertinFA seems to have been limited to the exchange of a few short emails and the baring of Mr. Michaels' financial soul on a whacky OPCA "legal advice' site with a 100% track record of success (!!!!11!!!!). But now that he's on the case the legal team at Lloyds better get ready, oh yes.
Sadly though, for all his self-aggrandising bragging, I would point out that the ExpertinFA never does tell you the outcome of his legal brilliance. For instance and despite all the crowing references to the Cornwall case involving Helen Gardiner there has been complete radio silence since the matter went to court in July last year.
