Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[Chaos]

perverting the course of justice

irony

[Gregg]

Too much to hope for him???????

And just enough rope for them!!!

[longdog]

A letter from your solicitors explaining why mortgages are exempt from the effect of the Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages judgment – nobody has the right to grant any legal of equitable interest over a property before they own it.

I've not read it but I fail to see how this is relevant. When you take out a mortgage and buy a house everybody signs everything before hand on the basis that when the exchange takes place the documents take effect. You sign a document that says "I grant Big Evil bank PLC an charge over 23 Railway Cuttings, East Cheam" and obviously that doesn't take effect until you become the legal owner. If the deal falls through you never own 23 Railway Cuttings so the charge is legally worthless.

This is all self evident as it's been established since god was a lad that you need good title over property before you can transfer the title. Or as Dr Watson so famously said... "No shit Sherlock!"

[morrand]

A letter from your solicitors explaining why mortgages are exempt from the effect of the Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages judgment – nobody has the right to grant any legal of equitable interest over a property before they own it.

I've not read it but I fail to see how this is relevant. When you take out a mortgage and buy a house everybody signs everything before hand on the basis that when the exchange takes place the documents take effect.

I have read it (Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd & Ors [2014] UKSC 52), and, to my inexpert eye, what it actually says—reaffirms, really—is that the sale and mortgage are indivisible: there is no moment of time between when the purchase is complete, and when the mortgage charge is granted, in which the purchaser can grant a superior interest. This does not seem relevant at all to challenging the validity of the mortgage.

Especially not when, in that case, the UKSC found against the occupants, allowing them to be evicted. This even after the occupants had apparently been swindled in a sale-and-rent-back scheme, a point that caused the court a certain amount of discomfort. I fail to see, again with my inexpert eye, how a case that effectively upheld the mortgage is useful for invalidating a mortgage.

[SteveUK]

I see no link between between that case and anything like o bonkers case. To summarise, we had a notorious lease back scheme. You had a mortgage, faced repossession, then a shady firm would buy it, pay off the mortgage and grant you a lifetime lease.

The only problem was it was bollocks. The purchaser wasnt placed to grant any over riding rights, trumping the lenders. When the new owner defaulted on the loan, the bank kicked the tenant out. The tenants sued.

The court agreed with the bank, albeit with significant sympathy for the tenant.


How the hell does this help his case?

[notorial dissent]

It doesn't, but then they don't understand it any more than they do straight mortgage banking, or just banking in general.

[Gregg]

I see no link between between that case and anything like o bonkers case. To summarise, we had a notorious lease back scheme. You had a mortgage, faced repossession, then a shady firm would buy it, pay off the mortgage and grant you a lifetime lease.

The only problem was it was bollocks. The purchaser wasnt placed to grant any over riding rights, trumping the lenders. When the new owner defaulted on the loan, the bank kicked the tenant out. The tenants sued.

The court agreed with the bank, albeit with significant sympathy for the tenant.


How the hell does this help his case?

That's mechanically pretty close to what Wrecks tried to do, although she made sure she controlled the shady firm, didn't pay off the existing judgments and tried to launder the title in the mix.

[Pottapaug1938]

From my conveyancing days, I recall numerous instances where the deed was executed, by the sellers, prior to the closing; and there were a few cases where the mortgage note and document were executed in advance, as well. Such executions bound only the parties; but upon recording (or registration; we in Massachusetts have this peculiarity called the Land Court), the documents bind everyone, as they constitute notice that the interests exist. For example, if the sellers proceed to execute a new deed to a new buyer, they buyers are on notice that the sellers have already conveyed out their interest in the property; and nay parties seeking to impose a lien on the property, against the sellers, are now out of luck.

I also recall that there is usually (if not always) a clause, in the mortgage documents, that any attempt to impair the lender's security interest in the property, such as by attempting to convey a superior interest in the property to another party, renders the mortgage note immediately due and payable in full.

I am also familiar with sales and lease-backs. During the construction of the Quabbin Reservoir, in western Massachusetts, between 1927 and 1939, many people sold their homes, in the affected areas, and were able to lease or rent back their homes, for nominal rents, until they found a new home, or were compelled to vacate because the Commonwealth needed their land. Some people, mostly ones who wanted to remain in the Swift River Valley for as long as possible, moved from house to house. These transactions, of course, were fully in compliance with the laws, and were handled with sensitivity towards those who were losing, not just their homes, but their entire towns or villages.

[SteveUK]

Those schemes are all but dead here now. The current one is equity release, where if you're an oldster and want some cash, you can sell any equity in your home to a company and remain in it. Useful for things like bailing kids out, paying care bills etc.

[mufc1959]

Those schemes are all but dead here now. The current one is equity release, where if you're an oldster and want some cash, you can sell any equity in your home to a company and remain in it. Useful for things like bailing kids out, paying care bills etc.

Yes, equity release is increasingly popular. There's nothing inherently wrong with it - many elderly people are asset-rich but cash-poor - and it's always been subject to strict advice standards, with the need for the customer to take their own independent legal advice. It's a mortgage, like any other mortgage, with the lender having a legal charge over the property. But no payments are required, so all the interest rolls up and when dear old mum eventually pops her clogs, it can be a big shock to the kids to find that a massive chunk of what they were thinking would be a nice inheritance has to go to the lender to pay off the mortgage.

Home reversion plans are another animal altogether - and I think that's what you might be talking about, Steve, because that's the one that involves a sale. With a home reversion plan, instead of taking out a mortgage, the customer sells the entire property to the home reversion provider. In return for a lump sum, the customer is allowed to stay in the property (and has to maintain and insure it) and the customer retains a beneficial interest in the property by way of a percentage share of the equity, depending on the amount of the lump sum. So if the house is worth £200K and they've had a lump sum of £50K, the customer has a 25% equity share. The other 75% is for the plan provider. On their death, the home reversion provider sells the house (because, after all, it's theirs) and pockets 75% of the equity. Where these were sold in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the increase in value of the property means that the provider gets a massive return on their investment, albeit they've had to wait maybe 20 years for it.

[aesmith]

Now promoting an anti-eviction mob organisation, and commercial liens. Presumably fall back in case his 100% bombproof legal processes fail.
https://www.thebernician.net/urgent-cal ... ion-force/
https://www.thebernician.net/mortgage-f ... n-process/

[TBL]

Wait, wait, wait...so looking at this idiot's page about how to send worthless paper with "legal" response requirements, it says that he "won" his battle against Bank of Scotland in February. I'm pretty sure this is the same style wins as previously, but am I forgetting reading about this big "win"?

[notorial dissent]

If he "won" then why is it/what bridge is he living under? Don't I remember that "Moran Manor" has been demolished and that the new owner(s) are redeveloping the property?

[Hercule Parrot]

did anyone else notice this glowing review of the failed movie?

“A hard-hitting account of malpractice by UK mortgage lenders and the complicity of UK courts. It documents a remedy available to potentially millions of mortgagors across England and Wales, thanks to the tenacious and fearless work of the documentary makers and a grassroots movement seeking justice for mortgagors wronged by the financial sector.”
Anthony O’Tierney, Accounting & Finance Lecturer at Leicester University.
https://www.thebernician.net/here-lies- ... gbms-news/

I assumed it was BS, but a brief google suggests this is authentic -

Mr Anthony O'Tierney
Lecturer in Accounting and Finance

I have assisted mortgagors in court cases and continue to be involved with groups who take a critical approach towards the construction of legal, financial and political systems...

My current research concerns the issuance, securitisation and servicing of mortgage accounts with reference to the credit creation theory of banking, as well as examining the impact of court cases on mortgage markets, the evidence of regulatory violations, and the potential for mis-selling claims against financial institutions.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/busin ... otierney-1

Surprising that a university lecturer in accounting and finance would fall down this rabbit-hole, but perhaps significant that he has no training or qualification in law (and only partially in accountancy).

[Penny Wise]

He has claimed victory, every few months for over 10 years. He has failed to show any evidence of success.

All the evidence in the public domain proves he has had no real success.

This is also the same person that helped convince Tom Crawford that he had won his case.

No more is needed to be said on that

[Penny Wise]

did anyone else notice this glowing review of the failed movie?

“A hard-hitting account of malpractice by UK mortgage lenders and the complicity of UK courts. It documents a remedy available to potentially millions of mortgagors across England and Wales, thanks to the tenacious and fearless work of the documentary makers and a grassroots movement seeking justice for mortgagors wronged by the financial sector.”
Anthony O’Tierney, Accounting & Finance Lecturer at Leicester University.
https://www.thebernician.net/here-lies- ... gbms-news/

I assumed it was BS, but a brief google suggests this is authentic -

Mr Anthony O'Tierney
Lecturer in Accounting and Finance

I have assisted mortgagors in court cases and continue to be involved with groups who take a critical approach towards the construction of legal, financial and political systems...

My current research concerns the issuance, securitisation and servicing of mortgage accounts with reference to the credit creation theory of banking, as well as examining the impact of court cases on mortgage markets, the evidence of regulatory violations, and the potential for mis-selling claims against financial institutions.
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/busin ... otierney-1

Surprising that a university lecturer in accounting and finance would fall down this rabbit-hole, but perhaps significant that he has no training or qualification in law (and only partially in accountancy).

"I also examine the role of accounting in the creation of legal entities, including individuals."

Says it all

[mufc1959]

There's also this load of nonsense.

https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/bitst ... entity.pdf

This paper seeks to explore and question the concept of the legal person, itself, as an actor, and its construction through quasi-juridical systems of power. We argue that there is an ontological separation between living men and women and their legal representations,

[faz]

seems odd that so many would commit so much to trying rather desperately to discredit others, like is this your life or what? i would guess that these keyboard assassins are evidence in fact of the fight to keep good people down. the slagging off of melanie shaw blew your cover.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

[wserra]

seems odd that so many would commit so much to trying rather desperately to discredit others, like is this your life or what? i would guess that these keyboard assassins are evidence in fact of the fight to keep good people down. the slagging off of melanie shaw blew your cover.

From the sources cited in the thread on Shaw, a jury did the "slagging off".

Bad jury! Trying rather desperately to discredit others! Keep[ing] good people down! Is this your life or what?