Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[noblepa]

This warrant has been purportedly initiated by an unidentified individual named Ntoko Collins . . .

Let me take a wild guess here. The identity of the "unidentified" individual is . . . (wait for it) . . . Ntoko Collins.

[longdog]

This warrant has been purportedly initiated by an unidentified individual named Ntoko Collins . . .

Let me take a wild guess here. The identity of the "unidentified" individual is . . . (wait for it) . . . Ntoko Collins.

You must be psychic!

So if I'm getting this right the mortgage holder was entitled to a free house because some Great-to-the-power-of-X Granny had an illegitimate child and therefore the name on the mortgage was 'wrong'. Something that probably applies to everybody if you go back far enough and would be an unfalsifiable claim for everybody else.

He seems to be under the laughably false impression that your name is dependent on whether or not your parents, or great grandparents, were married at the time of your (or grandpa's) birth.

I can see this turning into The Great British Mortgage Swindle Grounds Part 2 with the same level of success in court.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

He seems to be under the laughably false impression that your name is dependent on whether or not your parents, or great grandparents, were married at the time of your (or grandpa's) birth.

I'm sure that great legal minds can comment on this, but isn't it also true that the actual name doesn't matter and that all that needs to be established is that the person entering into a contract is a person identifiable to both parties at the time of signing regardless of name?

[longdog]

He seems to be under the laughably false impression that your name is dependent on whether or not your parents, or great grandparents, were married at the time of your (or grandpa's) birth.

I'm sure that great legal minds can comment on this, but isn't it also true that the actual name doesn't matter and that all that needs to be established is that the person entering into a contract is a person identifiable to both parties at the time of signing regardless of name?

That's how I understand it. Basically you can call yourself whatever you like and change your name every week if that's what floats your boat. All the courts care about is that you are the person they think you are and what you call yourself is irrelevant.

I'm willing to bet my entire fortune in Re, iLien and gravel that Mr Tudge / Scrivens is not using the same argument to prove the Land Registry entry for the property means he never owned it in the first place.

[John Uskglass]

Mr Tudge / Scrivens is not using the same argument to prove the Land Registry entry for the property means he never owned it in the first place.

Or indeed that the mortgage was fraudulent, but with the fraud being perpetrated by the borrower.

In any case, the whole idea that in 1862 'his great great grandmother falsely gave her ‘illegitimate’ child the name of Tudge' is somewhat odd to say the least.

For one thing, registration of births was not compulsory until 1875

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_cer ... ed_Kingdom

For another, as far as I can work out, there has never been a requirement in the UK that a child be given a particular surname.

https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law

This link also gives a useful summary of UK law on names more generally. As might be expected, it fails to support the idea that a name is permanent and immutable.

[Hercule Parrot]

However, it is worth stressing that Carl attended a mortgage possession hearing, initiated by Santander over purported arrears, on 20th September 2021, at which the judge ruled against him in his absence, due to the fact that the bank named ‘Carl Tudge’ as the defendant and not ‘Carl Scrivens’.

...Carl presented the documentary evidence of an ancestral line of registered births that goes back to 1862, when his great great grandmother falsely gave her ‘illegitimate’ child the name of Tudge.

This is childlike nonsense, even by Waugh's execrable standards.

- The man now calling himself Carl Scrivens is the same person as Carl Tudge, who previously entered a mortgage agreement to fund the purchase of a house. Carl Scrivens therefore rightfully owns that property, but is also liable for any remaining debt.

- The man now calling himself Carl Scrivens is not the same person as Carl Tudge, who previously entered a mortgage agreement to fund the purchase of a house. Carl Scrivens therefore has no claim over that property, and also no liability for any remaining debt.

There is no third option where the man now calling himself Carl Scrivens can claim the rights and assets previously held by Carl Tudge, but repudiate the debts and liabilities previously held by Carl Tudge. Either he's the same person, or he is not. This is the same foolishness as the hilarious 'agent, settler and individual' guy -

[longdog]

I wonder if his insistence on being two different people, depending on whether or not he owed money, had anything to do with him being sectioned.

Cause and effect or just correlation?

[ArthurWankspittle]

For another, as far as I can work out, there has never been a requirement in the UK that a child be given a particular surname.

I don't think the mother can register the birth and name the father without the two parents being married. I don't know if that further applies to the child's surname. e.g. Miss Street-Walker can't name her offspring Charles Winsor and put the better known Charles Winsor as the father on the birth certificate.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

For another, as far as I can work out, there has never been a requirement in the UK that a child be given a particular surname.

I don't think the mother can register the birth and name the father without the two parents being married. I don't know if that further applies to the child's surname. e.g. Miss Street-Walker can't name her offspring Charles Winsor and put the better known Charles Winsor as the father on the birth certificate.

Not quite. The parents don't have to be married to add the father's name. If both parents attend to register the birth then the father's name can be added. Otherwise there needs to be a statutory declaration of acknowledgement of parentage form filled out and signed and submitted with the registration request.

[Penny Wise]

Curious, has this been posted before

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Emery.pdf

Shines more light on the Legal success and expertise of O'Bernicia - and shows that he lied about the outcome

[longdog]

Curious, has this been posted before

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Emery.pdf

Shines more light on the Legal success and expertise of O'Bernicia - and shows that he lied about the outcome

His whole shtick on the mortgage front has always been a lie or, if you are being generous, him being 'economical with the truth'.

His version goes: "If there is a technical error on a mortgage then it is not valid as a legal mortgage and you get a free house".

The real world version, which he must know unless he's more stupid and less duplicitous than he seems, goes: "If there is a technical error on a mortgage then it is not valid as a legal mortgage but it's still valid as an equitable mortgage. If the parties won't correct the errors to make it a valid legal mortgage then a judge will do it for them. Nobody gets a free house".

This is essentially the whole basis of his "Great British Mortgage Swindle" bollocks. If you can find an error in your mortgage you get a free house. Quite which parallel universe you'd have to live in to think that's how the world works I have no idea.

[John Uskglass]

Just noticed that in a post from 26 October Waugh ends by saying:

For all of those who are waiting for news on the progress of the PCP against the perpetrators of the Midazolam Murders, with a fair wind there will be an update posted on this blog before the end of the week.

https://www.thebernician.net/testimonie ... se-events/

The world holds its breath...

[longdog]

Any day now!

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Shines more light on the Legal success and expertise of O'Bernicia - and shows that he lied about the outcome

His schtick has always been that his sister kept her house proving he was correct. Yet we know from the Land Registry that the trust lost its property and the courts have ruled against it every time.

However, as it was in the hands of the receiver, I suspect that after realising a sale on the main property that the proceeds yielded sufficient monies to pay the debt and that further repossession of his sister's house was not required - hence in his deluded mind his claims of !!!SUCCESS!1!

[John Uskglass]

Walkers Buildings sold for £800K in 2017

https://themovemarket.com/tools/histori ... ta/ne296ll

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Walkers Buildings sold for £800K in 2017

Correct. I posted the Land Registry entry for it in 2019. No sign of the Waugh's or their trust then. The property was called Asquorn House when they owned it.

Title Number : TY202264
Address of Property : 1 to 10 Walkers Buildings, Borough Road, North Shields (NE29 6LL)
Price Stated : Not Available
Registered Owner(s) : NORLAND ESTATES LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 08787581) of 18 St. Swithin's Lane, London EC4N 8AD.
Lender(s) : Prudential Trustee Company Limited

[John Uskglass]

Any day now!

Oh ye of little faith..

https://www.thebernician.net/midazolam- ... tes-court/

Following several months of dealing with circumstances beyond our control, the People’s Union of Britain [PUB] will next week finally be in a position to lay the papers at a Magistrates Court, in our Private Criminal Prosecution of the Four Horsemen of COVID-1984 and their accomplices for the Midazolam Murders.

Whilst we have somewhat deftly dealt with whatever has been thrown at us, from attempts to steal, lose or control the evidence we have amassed, to conspiracies to kill one, perhaps two, of the three key people involved in running this case, the increasingly obvious controlled opposition are hurtling towards irrelevance and obscurity.

He then goes on to reiterate the spurious argument that a rise in the numbers of people prescribed a drug used for end of life care during a pandemic that killed thousands is proof that the government set out to murder elderly care home residents.

Nesting inside this conspiracy theory is another one, that 'Hancock was forced to resign to distance the government from the allegations we are making.' Aye right. The Deep State was so scared of Waugh that they engineered Hancock's affair and made sure there was video evidence....

We're also told yet again that he's going to be using the services of a top anonymous lawyer.

However, over the course of the past few weeks, a highly respected CPS prosecutor, who specialized in prosecuting bent MET coppers whom no other advocate had the courage to indict during the 1990’s, has agreed in principle to argue the case against the defendants.

On the basis that this particular advocate is internationally renowned and respected within his profession and among the police, largely because they are all petrified of his devastating and fearless rhetoric, the revelation of his name [in due course] will send shock-waves through the undercrackers of the Four Horsemen and their army of accomplices.

In more simplistic terms, as a good friend of mine would put it:

“One of the most feared and successful barristers of the past thirty years has agreed to take instructions from one of the most feared and successful lay litigants in British legal history.”

A couple of other little helpers get a mention.

At which point it seems appropriate to disclose that the former CID fraud detective I have been working with on the case is Dave Laity, who is probably the most feared, respected and knowledgeable ex-copper in the country.

Dave’s vast understanding of the law and in particular the crime of fraud brings enormous credibility to the proceedings we have initiated, whilst I have never met anybody who is more resilient, unflappable and determined to bring our oppressors to justice.

To emphasize the gargantuan nature of Dave’s credentials, he is a well established Private Criminal Investigator, Criminal Consultant for APPG, Chairman of Action4Justice and a documentary filmmaker.

A4J have previously featured here.
https://www.action4justice.co.uk/information.htm

It should therefore be of no surprise that Dave is an integral member of the Banksterbusters community, with whom I have been working closely since the summer of 2019, in a class action law suit to end institutionalised mortgage fraud and signature forgery [which is also set to dramatically lurch forward].

Interesting that he might be reviving the TGBMS stuff. I'd have thought he'd run out of road with that.

In addition, as many of you will already know, the third member of the triumvirate is Scouse polymath, Mark Oakford, who has collected, arranged and illustrated a truly vast amount of data, which makes up the core of our prima facie evidence in the case.

Not a trace of hubris in his peroration.

Over most of the course of the next week, we will be engaged in finalizing the Statement of Case and compiling the bundles of evidence substantiating the allegations but once that process is complete we will be asking you all to engage in one final push, to force the news of the PCP being laid into mainstream online discussion.

Once that explosive news breaks, the swell of public support that ensues will guarantee that our adversaries will not get away with quietly rigging the judgment before it gets before a jury, as they did in the first incarnation of this Private Criminal Prosecution.

However, whilst we will still be demonstrating the blatant frauds of COVID-1984, which the defendants have used as their alibi, murder is far easier to prove than fraud and we no longer need to prove the latter, on the basis that we are only alleging murder by government policy in the Statement of Case.

So until the next PCP Update, by which time the papers should be laid in a Magistrates Court, keep the faith, stand your ground and rest assured that the fraudulent alibi for the most murderous con trick ever played is about to be exposed for the entire world to see.

After which, there will be nowhere left to run and hide for the perpetrators of the Midazolam Murders.

Obviously he's going to go down in flames again. You do wonder if he actually has many followers left given his track record of grandiose boasting followed by abject failure.

[Penny Wise]

“One of the most feared and successful barristers of the past thirty years has agreed to take instructions from one of the most feared and successful lay litigants in British legal history.”

So he isn't taking instruction from Michael then ?

[exiledscouser]

I’m sure I’ve read similar invective and bogus promises before, now where was that…..

COVID-1984 NEWSFLASH | The prosecution in People's Union of Britain v Matt Hancock has just sent the executed form, applying for his arrest warrant, to the court of issue.

We have already got the green light from the court's legal advisers and now we have the chief magistrates' permission to proceed. They also sent us the form to fill out for the arrest warrant, which has now been acknowledged by the same as having been received.

Oh yes. Michael O’Bollocks. 13th November 2020.

His followers just can’t see the fraud behind the curtain.

[John Uskglass]

13th November 2020

You raise PCP's and what do you get?
Another year older and deeper in debt.