Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[Burnaby49]

You're spelling his name incorrectly. It's Edmonds.

[longdog]

Hmmm.... And then there's a friend of mine who describes him based on several first hand experiences as being an insufferable, sawn off, "do you know who I am?" prick.

[Gregg]

I'm more a Noel Fielding fan, myself.

[hucknallred]

Comrades, I have sorely misrepresented PCC Stansfeld. It transpires that he is a leading campaigner against fraud and corruption in the finance industry*,

If you're remotely interested here's the interview. Not watched it, but it seems to be interspersed with TGBMS stock footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEAGNbZ5lA

[SoLongCeylon]

Email content from O'Bonkers.


Hello
So you want to join the class actions to end mortgage fraud and claim compensation for your losses from the Land Registry? You do? Well, this newsletter is the one you've been waiting for.

On the 6th of August 2019, the class actions effectively began, when Letters Before Claim were served upon the defendants, giving them 28 days to provide legally valid mortgage documents for 11.2 million registered mortgagors.

Over the course of the next few weeks, we will be adding everybody who submits their details via the TGBMS Claim pages at https://forgedsignatures.com as claimants in their regional actions.

Since the number of claimants is limited by the volume of evidence we have the capabilities of presenting to the High Courts, please act now to make sure you don't miss out on this unprecedented, once in a lifetime opportunity.

If you have already watched The Great British Mortgage Swindle, signed up to the TGBMS Mailing List and downloaded the TGBMS: Next Steps PDF guide, read on. If not, click here, follow the instructions, download and absorb the guide and then read on.

When you are up to speed with the TGBMS Grounds, you need to visit https://forgedsignatures.com/tgbms-claim and sign up for a free account at your earliest opportunity, if you wish to become a party to the class actions against the entire UK mortgage industry this summer.

Once registered, you will be able to join the class action nearest you, simply by submitting all the relevant information and uploading the documentary evidence which proves mortgage fraud, on one of more of the TGBMS Grounds.

Registered members will also be able to upload mortgage-related documents which contain forged signatures at this link: https://forgedsignatures.com/upload.

Together, united in our common cause, we will end mortgage fraud, on these shores and everywhere else.

All the best,

The Michaels of Bernicia and Deira

Related Links

https://forgedsignatures.com/

[aesmith]

So he seems to be off at a tangent now, comparing signatures that people have seen in some cases on unimportant documents like letter from their own solicitor. No idea what he hopes to achieve. https://forgedsignatures.com/compare

I also note he seems to have added another "TGBMS ground", claiming that the mortgage is invalid if your solicitor acted as witness. https://forgedsignatures.com/about-tgbms

[ArthurWankspittle]

If you signed a deed before owning the property, you have a claim.

If there’s no contract signed by you and the bank, you have a claim.

If your solicitor witnessed your signature, you have a claim.

What a load of BS. First one has been covered many times on here, you will likely sign it in advance of it being dated and of completion.
Second If there's no contract... If there's no contract what are you even talking about? I'd like to make a claim on the basis that neither I or a bank have a contract, yeah that will work. If there is no contract, why did the bank lend you the money or was it just fraud by you?
Third Depends on what was supposed to be being witnessed, and that depends on what the lender specifies. No solicitor in their right mind is going to witness something on a mortgage related deal that they aren't supposed to. Also good luck getting hold of a lot of these documents as they will be held securely by the lender.

[longdog]

I can only assume they are going to try to convince a court that they bought a house with money they got from somewhere or other and then decided for reasons unknown to make entirely voluntary payments to a random bank which just happened to be exactly the same amount as they would have made if they'd had a mortgage.

The fact that they were making these entirely voluntary payments in no way implies that they ever signed a contract to borrow money and repay it. It's all pure coincidence.

I'm less than 100% convinced this stratagem will be successful.

[TheNewSaint]

Here's what I don't get: if mortgages are false, how did they pay for the house? Where did the money change hands?

[exiledscouser]

Here's what I don't get: if mortgages are false, how did they pay for the house? Where did the money change hands?

Do keep up. It’s your signature that creates the wealth.

Although if that was in any sense true I’d have signed meself a billion quid long ago. Trouble being so would everyone else and we’d all be in Swizzindo Land.

I think these actions are going to be chucked out as being without merit at first appearance. If they continue to file worthless nonsense after that I hope each and every one of them are stung for the other side’s costs.

TC hinted that he had some court proceedings in the wings (doesn’t he always tho) so I suspect he’s one of the gullible fools hitching their carts to The Great British Mortgage Class Action Failure Club.

Expect things to kick off second week in September.

[aesmith]

Unfortunately the court might strike it out unilaterally, meaning little cost for the claimant. However you never know. The famous Applecart void deeds claim cost the lead claimant £8,500 in costs, and others joining the action were hit with costs even when withdrawing their claim. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandR ... _0031.html
I think that case could be a good template. TGBMS in three easy to follow steps ..
(1) Grounds dismissed as totally without merit
(2) Even if they weren't an equitable mortgage would still exist
(3) The respondent is entitled to their costs

[TheNewSaint]

Here's what I don't get: if mortgages are false, how did they pay for the house? Where did the money change hands?

Do keep up. It’s your signature that creates the wealth.

So their argument is really "I paid for the house when I created the money by signing the paperwork"?

I realize this is all just charlatanry, but I'm trying to work out the mental hoops being jumped through to explain away the lack of any exchange of value for the house.

[Burnaby49]

So their argument is really "I paid for the house when I created the money by signing the paperwork"?

I realize this is all just charlatanry, but I'm trying to work out the mental hoops being jumped through to explain away the lack of any exchange of value for the house.

The argument that sovereigns made in the United States was that once the mortgage was signed the mortgagee could, and often did, sell the mortgage to third party investors. Since it was a worthless piece of paper immediately before being signed and was worth its principal amount immediately after being signed the mortgagor, by signing the mortgage, created value out of thin air equal to the amount of the debt. So both parties received equal value from the transaction and the debt was paid off the moment it was incurred.

Somehow they forgot the part where the value of the mortgage derived from their promise to pay it back with interest.

[TheNewSaint]

[the argument was that] signing the mortgage created value out of thin air equal to the amount of the debt.

They forgot the part where the value of the mortgage derived from their promise to pay it back with interest.

That's a good way of explaining it. Thanks.

[noblepa]

So their argument is really "I paid for the house when I created the money by signing the paperwork"?

I realize this is all just charlatanry, but I'm trying to work out the mental hoops being jumped through to explain away the lack of any exchange of value for the house.

The argument that sovereigns made in the United States was that once the mortgage was signed the mortgagee could, and often did, sell the mortgage to third party investors. Since it was a worthless piece of paper immediately before being signed and was worth its principal amount immediately after being signed the mortgagor, by signing the mortgage, created value out of thin air equal to the amount of the debt. So both parties received equal value from the transaction and the debt was paid off the moment it was incurred.

Somehow they forgot the part where the value of the mortgage derived from their promise to pay it back with interest.

I've also heard them argue that, if the original lender sells the mortgage (a common occurrence in the US), then the loan has been repaid and the borrowed is under no further obligation.

[Juisarian]

Which a ten year old could probably tell you is not how securitization actually works.

[Pottapaug1938]

When I was still practicing law, and doing closings, I used to advise buyers that their mortgage would almost certainly sold off to a buyer who wanted the income. The original mortgagor would then take the cash received and put it back out in another mortgage. Anyone who objected was told that they would have to search for the very rare lender who kept their mortgages in-house; and no one cared to venture that far.

[TheNewSaint]

Anyone who objected was told that they would have to search for the very rare lender who kept their mortgages in-house; and no one cared to venture that far.

I did. I went with my own bank largely because they keep them in house instead of selling them on.

[Pottapaug1938]

The old days had its good parts.

During the Great Depression, Grampa never lost his job, but kept on getting his pay cut (with promises that the cuts would be made up when things got better; and those promises were kept). At one point, he went down to the bank which held the mortgage on his house, and said that he wanted to deed the house to the bank -- he couldn't keep up with the mortgage. the bank officer said "keep your house, Mr. Thomas. We already have more foreclosed houses than we can handle. You at least have a job; so pay what you can, when you can, and catch up when you can." Gram finally sold that house in 1995.

Years later, the Newton Savings Bank provided mortgages to buyers of one of the 412 single-family slab ranch houses built for Newton veterans. The man in charge of the loans would be flexible, if a family needed flexibility (my parents were not among those).

In both cases, the banks kept their mortgages in-house.

[Hercule Parrot]

Comrades, I have sorely misrepresented PCC Stansfeld. It transpires that he is a leading campaigner against fraud and corruption in the finance industry*,

If you're remotely interested here's the interview. Not watched it, but it seems to be interspersed with TGBMS stock footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEAGNbZ5lA

Thanks, I watched with interest. Hilariously captioned as "Produced, Edited and Directed by Michael O'Bonkers". Hard to see how a simple interview to camera requires a director, but maybe he shouted "action" periodically.

Most of the 25 mins is Stansfeld expressing righteous frustration that major banking fraud isn't taken more seriously in UK, with O'Bonkers trying to lead this back to the "mortgage swindle" and put words in Stansfeld's mouth -

04:50 - does Stansfeld know about the secret deal between parliament and the banks? Supposedly that no judge will be permitted to make any finding of fraud by a bank, and in return no MP will be bankrupted. (HP note - It is not explained how parliament communicated this dirty deal to the judges, or why the judges would feel bound by it)

15:10 - Will Stansfeld confirm it is his view that Police must only attend evictions to prevent Breach of Peace, eg never assist the bailiffs? (HP note - despite a statutory duty to do do in some circumstances)

16:10 - Following from previous, will Stansfeld confirm that Police must satisfy themselves that the process and documents are lawful, including a sealed court order signed by the judge? (HP note - the "wet ink signature" is not legally required)

23:00 - Will Stansfeld confirm that he specifically endorses and supports the O'Bonkers mortgage swindle unicorn?

Interesting that Stansfeld doesn't agree or confirm any of these things - he makes vaguely sympathetic noises, appears to be supportive, but never explicitly says "yes". And this is presumably after O'Bonkers has edited the footage to emphasise his agenda. Perhaps Stansfeld was being careful, suspecting this was a trap.

Overall though, it's disappointing. O'Bonkers will market this as "look at my influence in high places, send money" because Stansfeld comes over as a fellow-traveler. This can't be entirely blamed on the editing either, as Stansfeld makes some unfortunate generalised remarks about "many evictions are unlawful" and "police need to be re-educated".

Ironic that Stansfeld's admirable condemnation of fraud will now be used to mislead and exploit desperate people who are hanging onto their homes by their fingernails, encouraging them into reckless and self-destructive tactics.