Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[notorial dissent]

Or the minus sign.

I still think it is just zeros on both sides of the decimal point.

Hey, liars gotta lie.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

This is getting complicated as this was posted by Neelu, but I think it's really a TGBMS dupe so it probably should be here.

https://youtu.be/E_CysBsSdBk

TGBMS Universal Postal Union Federal Judge Fernandes Stays Mortgage Pending "NO FRAUD" Proof by UCC
Telephone Notice to the Mortgage / Arrears Department of Lender
Birmingham Midshires / HalifaxOF ADVICE BY A FIDUCIARY,
Estate Manager, Julian Anthony Fernandes, Federal Judge of the
Universal Postal Union on behalf of the Mortgagee Gordon Byers
TO STOP ALL PAYMENTS pending PROOF OF “NO FRAUD” in TR1
+ 0C2 at Land Registry with Personal Liability Notice to Section 151
Officer, Director of Finance, CEO under Motu Proprio, Gold Act 1933,
UCC Title 18 1001 1000 Title 15, Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 Title 42

This is a compact declaration of mostly US gibberish, but at its root I think it means that some moron has read the crap eminating from O'Bonkers and has decided he doesn't have to pay his mortgage.

[notorial dissent]

Yeah, the Postal Union Federal Judge and the UCC stuff is from our side of the pond and is totally meaningless.

[longdog]

And The Gold Act 1933.

[notorial dissent]

And The Gold Act 1933.

And we all know how that was enforced in the UK. The Gold Act and the UCC in the UK, seriously?

[longdog]

And The Gold Act 1933.

And we all know how that was enforced in the UK. The Gold Act and the UCC in the UK, seriously?

Strange how the same people who will claim UK laws don't apply to them because reasons will claim US laws do apply in the UK when it suits them.

[aesmith]

Missed this one a week or so back ... First Daft Claim Served on Chief Land Registrar

Please correct me but I don't think "serving" a draft claim form has any legal meaning. A claim form goes to the court to raise a claim. Sending a claim form, draft or not, it to someone other than the court is no more than a letter saying "here's what we're thinking of doing".

Later than initially anticipated due to circumstances beyond our control, I am delighted to inform you that the first draft claim from in the TGBMS Class Actions has been served on the Chief Land Registrar for England and Wales, who has 28 days to respond.

If you signed a mortgage deed before you owned the property you needed a ‘loan’ from the bank to purchase, whether on the instructions of the conveyancing solicitor or an agent of the bank, you are represented in this action, which seeks the following declarations from the High Court:

The mortgages concerned were mistakenly registered by the Land Registry because the instruments were dishonestly made and falsely delivered as deeds, in breach of section 1 of the LPMPA 1989, which renders them void under section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

As such they must be removed from the Charges Register by the Chief Land Registrar, as mistakes caused by institutionalised frauds; and the void mortgagors affected are entitled to be indemnified for all the losses incurred as a direct result of the illegal registrations; all of which is in accordance with Land Registry Practice Direction 39.

[longdog]

Yeah... Completely and utterly meaningless.

It's a favourite trick of the American conspiritards, freetards and wootards to draw up a draft court filing and then post it to the internet as though it has some sort of legal weight because it looks a bit legalish.

I very much doubt The Land Registry will do anything other than turn his legally groundless nonsense into small pet bedding.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I very much doubt The Land Registry will do anything other than turn his legally groundless nonsense into small pet bedding.

This is the massive weakness that O'Bonkers will not tell his dupes. Even if his case has merit. Even if there is a loophole. The full apparatus off the state will be available to provide properly funded legal representation.

That his case has no merit, is completely bogus and up against a well funded defence is moot.

Of course, we all know that when it is chucked out, as having no cause of action, this only provides evidence of the vast conspiracy as opposed to his stupidity.

[notorial dissent]

Wouldn't any changes/removal of land registry docs have to come at the order of a court?

[John Uskglass]

Whatever our increasingly desperate detractors will tell you, the TGBMS Class Actions are moving forward, with claims the banksters will never have the opportunity to defend.

Now I'm no fancy lawyer type, but it seems to me that the only way the banksters don't get the opportunity to defend claims is if the claims don't actually reach the court. (Unless the claims are filed at the Common Law Court, of course..)

[Arthur Rubin]

Missed this one a week or so back ... First Daft Claim Served on Chief Land Registrar

Yep, it's a daft claim, all right.

[aesmith]

Now I'm no fancy lawyer type, but it seems to me that the only way the banksters don't get the opportunity to defend claims is if the claims don't actually reach the court. (Unless the claims are filed at the Common Law Court, of course..)

If I recall the dismal "Applecart void deed" saga correctly I think they started off raising their claims against the Land Registry, but were directed that the claim should be against the bank, and they were heard in the Property Chamber (and thoroughly dismissed).

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Well, he's right on one thing... it's a heap of steaming!

The Great British Mortgage Swindle is steaming ahead.

The first TGBMS Class Action against the Chief Land Registrar of England and Wales has moved to the next stage of proceedings.

After receiving the CLR's initial response to the draft claim form alleging that every registered mortgage is fraudulent, on the ground that the deeds were all signed by the mortgagor before the proprietary right to grant a mortgage had arisen upon the completion of the purchase of the property concerned, we now know that he has pretty much accepted that the points of law we rely upon are correct.

However, the defence he has put forward is founded on two infinitely refutable assertions:

1. That the claim cannot possibly succeed because the allegations will be trumped by an appeal to the common practice of the conveyancing industry. In other words, it must be okay because everybody's doing it.

2. That the mortgagors represented do not have losses to indemnify. Or, more specifically, they all got their properties, so no losses can be said to have accrued.

Needless to say, the CLR has now been served the Particulars of Claim, which precisely decimate the position he has taken, on the following basis:

1. An appeal to common practice is no defence to institutionalised frauds, which unravel all, as per the 2019 Supreme decision in Takhar.

2. The demonstrable losses include every fraudulent mortgage payment documented on the bank's own statements, as well as the value of the promissory note [signed mortgage offer and acceptance letter], which created the funds to purchase the property concerned, plus interest and costs.

Furthermore, we have sincerely urged the CLR to concede every aspect of the claim in the name of fairness and justice, on the ground that we have in excess of five hundred examples of fraudulently registered mortgages, which he has the statutory duty to rectify, under section 6 of schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

Whilst he, his advisers and the Treasury [which would have to foot the bill for any compensation paid out] will obviously do all they can to avert the inevitable, with no legal argument capable of being sustained, they would only increase their losses by incurring legal costs, which they will have to cover themselves when the claim succeeds.

For these reasons, it is clearly in the best interests of everybody except the banksters and their parasitic minions for the CLR to concede, rather than fight the claim, knowing they can immediately claim back their losses from the banks and their complicit solicitors, after paying compensation to every void mortgagor.

We therefore very much look forward to bringing you news of further developments in the next TGBMS Class Actions newsletter, once we have received the CLR's response to the Particulars of Claim.

Have a great weekend.

All the best,

The Michaels of Bernicia and Deira

Defence (2) is sort of the point!

[longdog]

However, the defence he has put forward is founded on two infinitely reunfutable assertions:

Right... That's that bit fixed.

1. That the claim cannot possibly succeed because the allegations will be trumped by an appeal to the common practice of the conveyancing industry. In other words, it must be okay because everybody's doing it.

I look forward to O'Bonkers and his team attempting to prove every single legal expert in the field has been wrong since the year dot.

2. That the mortgagors represented do not have losses to indemnify. Or, more specifically, they all got their properties, so no losses can be said to have accrued.

The absolute crux of the matter. Every party achieved everything they set out to achieve. The bank sold a loan, the seller sold the house, the buyer bought the house and the lawyers, estate agents and removals firm got paid. There is no loss unless you include some imaginary loses in the minds of people who still don't understand how fractional reserve banking works.

Parsing the whole letter into English. "We got a reply telling us to piss off and that our draft claim was ludicrous nonsense without any legal basis whatsoever."

[notorial dissent]

It isn't that they DON'T understand fractional reserve, they don't understand simple banking, they don't understand property law, and they don't understand the legal system. They don't understand that just because O'Wahh makes a lot of noise and throws a lot of paper around that it doesn't mean a thing, and those mortgages aren't void until they convince a judge of that, and with what he's spewing, ain't never going to happen.

[JimUk1]

That the mortgagors represented do not have losses to indemnify. Or, more specifically, they all got their properties, so no losses can be said to have accrued.

I would love to understand why they don’t understand this piece?

You wouldn’t go to a restaurant, order and eat a meal and then refuse to pay because “eating is a basic human need”?

The sense of entitlement with these people is beyond belief.
Sounds like another easy win for the banks legal teams.

[JimUk1]

Now I'm no fancy lawyer type, but it seems to me that the only way the banksters don't get the opportunity to defend claims is if the claims don't actually reach the court. (Unless the claims are filed at the Common Law Court, of course..)

If I recall the dismal "Applecart void deed" saga correctly I think they started off raising their claims against the Land Registry, but were directed that the claim should be against the bank, and they were heard in the Property Chamber (and thoroughly dismissed).

If anyone is interested I a piece of nostalgia-
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/p ... activity=1

[John Uskglass]

Warning - Pedant getting something off their chest...

One of the many irritating things about MoB is how convinced he clearly is of his own cleverness. And in particular, his eagerness to demonstrate this to his followers with high falutin' language, despite the fact that he quite often doesn't fully understand the words he's using. See for example -

which precisely decimate the position he has taken

I know 'decimate' has shifted its meaning from destroying 1 in 10 to partial destruction, but prefacing it with 'precisely' rather shifts it backe to the original meaning, I feel.* Either way, what MoB is actually saying is that his claims partially demolish the CLR's argument, which, if you want to overturn the entire basis of mortgage lending, would seem to be inadequate for a glorious victory.

verb: decimate; 3rd person present: decimates; past tense: decimated; past participle: decimated; gerund or present participle: decimating

1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something).
"public transport has been decimated"

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/decimate

*And that's being kind, I think there's a strong argument that 'precisely' can't reasonably used in this context.

'Infinitely refutable' grinds my gears as well, but I won't try your patience further....

[aesmith]

Another update, I'm not sure if he's just quoting case law at random or whether we can expect him to add another "ground" alone the lines of "I signed a separate piece of paper and someone else appended that to the deed". "So I deserve another free house".
https://www.thebernician.net/garguilo-v ... id-charge/