Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[John Uskglass]

VICTORY!
https://www.thebernician.net/private-cr ... urt-stage/

Private Criminal Prosecution Moves To Final Pre-Court Stage

My experience of the past few days, in relation to the Private Criminal Prosecution against Matt Hancock for pandemic fraud, reminds me of Muhammad Ali’s journey through the Rumble in the Jungle.

After being bludgeoned with George Foreman’s sledgehammer fists for seven rounds, Ali knocked him out in the eighth round, when Foreman had exhausted himself and could hardly lift his arms, let alone defend himself.

So following my seven rounds of absorbing all the punches and low blows from numerous opponents, here lies a redacted copy of the email we received last Friday, confirming that I wasn’t talking “nonsense”, “coo-coo” or “fantasy” and that the warrant application was due to be processed yesterday.



Private Criminal Prosecution Moves To Final Pre-Court Stage
COVID-1984 NEWSFLASH

Since beginning to write this post, we have received the following email from the Chief Magistrates office, regarding the private prosecution:

“I can confirm that the application was sent to the Senior District Judge last Friday and she nominated a District Judge based at Westminster Magistrates Court to deal with your application.

As we are an administrative office only, we cannot process your application and it must be dealt with by a court. This is now with the legal team at Westminster Magistrates Court and once the Judge has made his ruling you will be hearing from them direct.”

Judge Nominated By Chief Magistrate

The ruling the nominated judge will have to make is as follows:

1. Whether the criminal procedure and practice directions have been adhered to, in which case the arrest warrant must be issued.

2. Whether the accused should be arrested, or ordered to give himself up at the local police station by a certain time, to be charged and brought before the crown court to plead.

3. Whether the case is of such public importance that it must be taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In summary, the warrant application has now been approved by the legal advisers at the magistrates court in Suffolk where we laid the papers, as well as the Chief Magistrate and her legal advisers.
Final Hurdle

Now all we need to happen for the warrant to be issued, one way or another, is to clear the final hurdle – obtaining the approval of the legal team at Westminster Magistrates Court, before it goes before the judge.

News on that front will follow as soon as it comes in, whilst my detractors wince at the denouement of the truth revealing itself for all to see.

To the vast majority who kept the faith, no matter what anybody falsely claimed over the past few days, thank you. Your loyalty will never be forgotten.

[aesmith]

Supposedly there's an update on his website, but conveniently he's taken it offline so nobody can read it.

[SpearGrass]

Oh dear. In fact the nominated judge must decide whether the information discloses an offence and even if it does, whether it would be proper to trespass on parliament's prerogatives. He is right however that initially the judge must be satisfied that the application satisfies the Rules, for which see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rules-and-p ... tions-2020 rule 7. And while you're there, have a look at the prescribed form for commencing a prosecution.

Mr Waugh has also not grasped that a private prosecution is just that. If the judge issues a summons, Mr Waugh will have to serve it. If he issues a warrant, Mr Waugh will have to arrest the Minister, or persuade someone else to. If there's a court hearing, he has to present the case, or pay a real lawyer to present it. The police aren't involved at all.

This slacktivism probably explains his wish for the DPP to take over, not something which I would want in these circumstances, given what he would probably do, but explicable if he wishes to have this done with minimum effort on his part. Rather like his approach to the ownership of real property.

Oh yes, and 'top QCs", or even bottom ones, don't do direct access. You need a solicitor, a junior barrister, and a whole heap of £££ to get a QC on your side, unless it's pro bono, and those QCs who do pro bono work tend to save themselves for things like people in Jamaica in danger of the death penalty, not something as toxic as this.

Cranky - qualifying as a barrister is rather more serious now - the sessions trainee barristers must do are now called 'qualifying sessions' and have to include more than just eating, indeed they may not involve eating at all. When I did it, in the early 80s, it was just a question of eating school dinners with a glass of wine and port, while the barristers on the top table ate rather better fare and more courses (they paid more though). But I did get to meet Lord Denning.

[Juisarian]

Must admit if he actually did manage to submit the right forms, more or less properly filled out, to the right court that is an impressive achievement, compared to my what I expected.

[CrankyBoomer]

I wonder if when the boys in blue went to 'arrest' M Hancock he said, "I do not consent."
Though these days it could have been the girls in blue.

[CrankyBoomer]

Thanks to Owl and Speargrass for the information about the barristers' lunches. I don't want to bring conspiracy to this site but someone who got a mention on the Hoaxt--d blog when it was active is now in jail on remand who is supposed to be an ex-barrister. He didn't seem to have been a barrister for very long factoring in pupillage and the 12 dinners - though I guess the 12 dinners come under pupillage. On a more pleasant note how cool to have met Lord Denning.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

...someone who got a mention on the Hoaxt--d blog when it was active is now in jail...

Doesn't narrow it down

Biting my tongue right now because of our Contempt of Court Laws and I don't want to give away the ending!

[Foggy]

Y'all are really afraid of me?

How quaint.

Shouldn't we be?

I mean, you have a crack team of airborne assault dachshunds, who can parachute in without warning to punish miscreants.

Harrumph, my three kittehs would carve those sausage goggies into ribbons.

They practice on each other a lot.

[longdog]

I'd always put my money on kitteh in a fight with a doggo. As a matter of fact my money would still be on them if they were outnumbered two to one.

Of the nine dogs I've owned in my life they've all hated cats and all but one of them had / have an unbroken record of losing fights with therm.

The exception was my first greyhound who came to me because she was a cat killer. One of the true great dogs but when it came to small, and not so small, fury animals she was murderously efficient and efficiently murderous. I was quite happy to let her murder edible wildlife but drew the line at domestic pets.

[MRN]

Y'all are really afraid of me?

How quaint.

Shouldn't we be?

I mean, you have a crack team of airborne assault dachshunds, who can parachute in without warning to punish miscreants.

Harrumph, my three kittehs would carve those sausage goggies into ribbons.

They practice on each other a lot.

I, on the other hand, am putting my faith in the fact that I have two 1-kilo bags of dried liver treats in the house, and also quite a lot of cheese.

Bribery > violence.

(The technical owner of the liver treats would be no help at all. He appears to process all small dogs as puppies and would happily let the doxies walk all over him.)

[exiledscouser]

Well here we are Wednesday 19th Nov and Hancock is still at liberty. We have an email to O’Bonkers from a court saying that the case would be looked at on Monday, nothing more. The email is in response to one send by MoB out of hours on Friday last week.

Mike reads a lot into that email but it just says the case will be looked at.

Show me the warrant, it must be signed in wet ink/blue blood blah blah.

No noise from those seeking the execution of an arrest warrant on the Secretary of State - yet. From his frequent appearances on telly there’s no immediate sign of detention.

[SpearGrass]

Must admit if he actually did manage to submit the right forms, more or less properly filled out, to the right court that is an impressive achievement, compared to my what I expected.

Nope.

[JimUk1]

Hancock had a harder time with Susan and Piers on GMB, then he will ever have with Mike.

Do you think we could get Mike on GMB?

[Gregg]

Shouldn't we be?

I mean, you have a crack team of airborne assault dachshunds, who can parachute in without warning to punish miscreants.

Harrumph, my three kittehs would carve those sausage goggies into ribbons.

They practice on each other a lot.

I, on the other hand, am putting my faith in the fact that I have two 1-kilo bags of dried liver treats in the house, and also quite a lot of cheese.

Bribery > violence.

(The technical owner of the liver treats would be no help at all. He appears to process all small dogs as puppies and would happily let the doxies walk all over him.)

Attack Helicopters....all we're gonna say.

[aesmith]

Looks like it's been smartly knocked back ..

COVID-1984 PCP UPDATE: After initially being told yesterday morning that we wouldn't receive the judge's decision [on whether to issue the arrest warrant] for another ten days, by the late afternoon he had already made up his mind and ruled as follows:
1. That he was satisfied that we have the authority to bring the private prosecution.
2. That he has the jurisdiction to decide the application.
3. That it is not a prosecution which can only be run by the CPS.
However, the judge did not agree that Hancock's dishonesty is proven by his publicly documented failure to disclose to MPs [before they voted on the CV act] that CV had been reclassified as no longer being considered an airborne High Consequence Infectious Disease [HCID], or that the Imperial Model had been proven to be false.

Followed by a lot of flannel bout how they could appeal but won't, and why this is really a win because it tells them what they need to include in their next prosecution.

https://www.facebook.com/michael.oberni ... 4971046391

[exiledscouser]

Mighty steps achieved in bringing MPs and one in particular to justice?

Err....no.

Tomorrow afternoon, we are due to speak with our legal team and there will be a further update soon afterwards, laying out how the case will proceed, now that we have established the evidence threshold that needs to be met, given that nobody else has ever brought such a private criminal prosecution against a serving cabinet minister before, let alone had one arrested.

Ahh, the good old evidence threshold, that troublesome requirement for there actually to be some.

In the meantime, rest assured that, whatever the establishment throws at us, be it in whatever form it comes, the PCP is moving forward, with or without a warrant being issued to prevent further crimes being committed.

The first admission that there might never be a warrant. The following explains to me the nature of his support, its quasi-religious nature needing folk to 'keep the faith' despite others pointing out the fact that the story in increasingly falling apart.

Once again, thank you to the vast majority of you, both for warding off shills, trolls and agents in my absence, as well as keeping the faith, despite the wild and crazy false allegations that are flying about.

"Shills, trolls and agents" in this case being anyone who sees through the scam.

He talks about his legal team, I assume it was after the first pronouncement above, although its similarly worded it refers to the past tense;

Yesterday afternoon, we had a conference call with the three barristers involved, during which we agreed on how proceed with the case, now that we have established the evidence threshold that needs to be met, given that nobody else has ever brought such a private criminal prosecution against a serving cabinet minister before, let alone had one arrested.

Now very few of m'learned friends act pro-bono these days, they save such professional generosity for such things as prsoners on death row in some squalid repressive regime, not nobbling a member of the government . Having one barrister in your corner is usually sufficient in most criminal proceedings, in more complex matters a leader and junior might be required. But legal aid will be thin on the ground as, remember, MoB is both investigator and prosecutor here, he's bringing the proceedings, not defending against them.

We learn though that there are (allegedly) THREE merlot-glugging members of the bar on the payroll. What, the very people enrolled in the hated BAR and as such beholden to propping up the whole rotten system? Surely not these folk?

Where is the money coming from you might ask? Personally I don't think he needs any because these reported proceedings exist only in his imagination.

Either he's shelling out an inordinate amount on legal fees or as one commentator on MoB's Facebook page promoting this observes;

Am I the only one that smells bullshit?

Probably not.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'm amazed that he hasn't been able to name the three barristers involved. This would surely be the pinnacle of their careers to be seen to take on the establishment?

Or he's employed EWE who is now pissing his money up the wall on colonic colloidal silver enemas.

[John Uskglass]

Looking again at the email from HMCTS I posted up thread on 17/11, it appears to have been sent to Waugh and what I take to be internal email addresses (the ones @JusticeUK & @Justice.gov.uk). I'd have thought that if he had a legal team, they'd have been copied in?

IIRC that's the only documentary evidence that the PP is more than fantasy that Waugh has produced. I'd have thought that if he had an opinion in his favour from a qualified lawyer, he'd have posted it up with much gloating...

I did wonder if EE QC was involved, but last time I looked there was no indication on his site that that was the case.

[notorial dissent]

Let me say that I have a serious case of doubt of the whole thing. In fact, I have serious issues believing anything O'Wah says.

If he could publish the first email, I see no reason why he couldn't publish the second as well since it would prove his assertions. It also strains credulity that they would "allow" a private prosecution of a sitting minister. I think this is just all more fantasy LARPing.

[longdog]

It also strains credulity that they would "allow" a private prosecution of a sitting minister.

I think the most reasonable interpretation of events is that they didn't.

It looks to me like the whole thing was tossed as being totally without merit and O'Bonkers' paperwork didn't even allege a REAL crime had been committed just some vague crap which added up to nothing more than pitiful whining. The issues about parliamentary privilege and sovereignty probably didn't even become relevant as there was no real crime to consider in the first place.

You don't have to consider whether the queen is immune to charges of stepping on the cracks in the pavement because stepping on the cracks in the pavement is not a crime.