Paul Michaels - biggest FMOTL loser to date

[John Uskglass]

allegedly witnessed by a solicitor at Vinson and Elkins of London, someone who does exist it appears and who really is a qualified solicitor but why she would choose to put her signature to this document, well, I just don't know.

As I understand it, and this seems to back me up, all a solicitor witnessing a signature is doing is confirming the identity of the person signing.

http://www.lawoffice.co.uk/witnessing.aspx

[exiledscouser]

allegedly witnessed by a solicitor at Vinson and Elkins of London, someone who does exist it appears and who really is a qualified solicitor but why she would choose to put her signature to this document, well, I just don't know.

As I understand it, and this seems to back me up, all a solicitor witnessing a signature is doing is confirming the identity of the person signing.

http://www.lawoffice.co.uk/witnessing.aspx

Thanks for the interesting link which states the following;

Solicitors often witness documents. The signature of a solicitor on a document is regarded as giving it a high standard of verification because it is not given lightly.

Before a solicitor can sign to witness a document he must be satisfied as to the identity of the person making the document.

US/Canadian Sov Cits seem to place great reliance on having their documents 'signed off' by a Notary Public.

Whilst there are Notaries in the UK they don't seem to get used as much by the Footle community. Solicitors though, that's another matter.

Would the documents in question (these ones) have any more or less veracity whether or not they are witnessed by someone legally qualified? I'm not entirely sure.

I do think - and I may be mistaken - the intent here on the part of Mr. Michaels in getting this document or at least, his signatures on them witnessed by a solicitor is to imply some sort of legal endorsement of the content. After all, if its just a question of the identity of the person making the document then no real need to use m'learned friends. In fact Mr. Michaels does not feel the need to prove his identity this way on any of the other myriad documents he sends to his bank.

It is revealing and possibly supportive of this view that these particular letters starts off, after the usual Principal/Agent guff with;

This is a LEGAL NOTICE and not a letter

My point is that most legally qualified practitioners might be expected to carry out at least a little due diligence regarding the overall import, intent and content of letters and their enclosures in which their signatures are to feature. The solicitor in question isn't just witnessing signatures but endorsing hand-made alterations within the letters.

In this case it didn't really matter because the bank just asked for actual payment, not a simple promise to pay but the linked guidance does say that a lawyer's signature is a "high standard of verification because it is not given lightly". Or, perhaps more to the point, it's not given free of charge! - solicitors regularly relieve me of £10 to witness signatures on affidavits.

The documents in question (two promissory notes) were also the prime basis of Paul's ultimately unsuccessful trip to the appeal courts so would have been widely considered, at least within the legal community.

[longdog]

As I understand it, and admittedly my personal experience extends only as far as two executorships on my parents wills, the signature of the solicitor confirms only what it says it confirms. If it says an oath or affirmation was made in their presence and they were satisfied as to the persons identity it means that and no more. If it simply says "Signed in my presence by a person claiming to be... " it means that and no more.

The actual number of times a document needs to even be witnessed under British law are very few and far between and the number that need a solicitor or notary's signature are even fewer and further between. But still.... If you have pages of gibberish it gives a superficial quasi-official gloss I suppose and it's £10 for the tea and bikkies fund at the lawyer's office.

[mufc1959]

As I understand it, and this seems to back me up, all a solicitor witnessing a signature is doing is confirming the identity of the person signing.

http://www.lawoffice.co.uk/witnessing.aspx

As a solicitor myself, I can confirm this is almost right. All you're doing when you witness a signature on a document where the person signing it is not your client is confirming that you saw the person sign the document. You don't even need to see proof of identity - at least I don't think so (but then I've not been in private practice for a few years, I'm in-house and the KYC requirements might be different now).

There's no retainer, no advice, but the person whose document it is wants someone whose probity is (fairly) unimpeachable in case someone else at a future date questions whether the signature is genuine or not.

Of course, years down the line, you'd never remember who it was you saw on that day in 2007 when you were asked to witness a document that someone had come in off the street with. But if my signature appeared as witness on a document I could swear on oath in court that if you are showing me a document upon which my signature appears as a witness, then there is no doubt at all that I did in fact see that person sign that document in my presence.

[Hercule Parrot]

You truly know when you've hit rock bottom when you feel the only alternative is the ExpertinFA. But Paul Michaels seems to have swallowed the pill of woo well before their paths ever crossed. When your correspondence with the bank starts;

Michaels appears to have been an LIP for some of the period (many years) this matter has been going on which has led to (in my view) an 'excess of indulgence', allowing matters to drift. Something to be said then for this approach? Sadly, it only delays the inevitable as TC, Neelu and Liz OTF Watson would attest.

Seems to me that this chap has been working through every possible method of defence and delay, in the hope that the property market would pick up, he or his wife inherit some monies or one of his business interests might become profitable. They have a privileged lifestyle, and he intends to cling to it for as long as possible. Understandable, and I might do the same in his position. A fire sale during a recession isn't the best way to release some equity from one's portfolio.

What I don't understand is why the banks are so tolerant of wealthy attitude, assertive debtors - Elizabeth Watson has successfully played the same game for something like a decade, and I wouldn't bet against her staying in her home until they carry her out in a box. The fact that Mr Michaels is now resorting to the Expert-in-Fuck-All also shouldn't be misunderstood as him buying into those beliefs - I'll wager that he knows perfectly well it's all rubbish, but he's run out of 'mainstream' delaying tactics so this will do until another wheeze comes along.

[The Seventh String]

Would the documents in question (these ones) have any more or less veracity whether or not they are witnessed by someone legally qualified? I'm not entirely sure.

I do think - and I may be mistaken - the intent here on the part of Mr. Michaels in getting this document or at least, his signatures on them witnessed by a solicitor is to imply some sort of legal endorsement of the content. After all, if its just a question of the identity of the person making the document then no real need to use m'learned friends. In fact Mr. Michaels does not feel the need to prove his identity this way on any of the other myriad documents he sends to his bank.

A solicitor witnessing the signing gives the contents of such a letter no more standing than it has if Mickey Mouse witnessed the signing. All it shows is a solicitor was present when the letter was signed and the solicitor saw enough evidence to reasonably believe the person signing is who they said they are.

Even a letter written by a solicitor very often has no standing beyond “I am a solicitor acting under instruction from so-and-so, my client instructs me that these are the relevent facts and I consider the relevant law to be....” The solicitor (or barrister) may well be quite wrong about the facts and the law, which is one reason we have courts and judges to sort out disputes. Though a surprising number of people do seem to think that “sending a solicitor’s letter” will get whatever result they want because “they will have to do what a solicitor says”.

No, they don’t have to do any such thing. Which is another reason we have courts and judges.

[The Seventh String]

Seems to me that this chap has been working through every possible method of defence and delay, in the hope that the property market would pick up, he or his wife inherit some monies or one of his business interests might become profitable. They have a privileged lifestyle, and he intends to cling to it for as long as possible.

That’s what I thought most likely.

What I don't understand is why the banks are so tolerant of wealthy attitude, assertive debtors -

There’s an old but true saying about if you owe a little money and can’t repay you’ll be worrying about how to deal with the bank manager. Owe a great deal of money and the bank manager will be worrying about how to deal with you.

I’m sure class and the “right kind” of background can have something to do with it as well, along with an assumption - or hope - that those who once had money might one day again have money so waiting gives the best chance of getting the highest possible repayments. It’s also true that the same lender who will pursue £5,000 debts to the ends of the Earth might agree to write off half a £1,000,000 debt on the grounds that at least they’ll still get £500,000 back and future business with that customer might yet turn out to be profitable.

[notorial dissent]

Here in the US having a Notary sign a document has some magic significance in the sovcit and general moronosphere, which of course it doesn't. All it means is that the notary witnessed the person sign the document, and either knows the person or has seen documentation as to who they are, and sovict magic papers don't qualify. The notarized document then gains even more majik if they can then get an apostille on the document, which just certifies that the notary is for real and the signature matches what they have on file for them. Neither of these actions confers any authority to the document whatsoever. A notary can notarize a grocery list as long as it is signed in their presence. They also think a notarial protest has some majik significance and is in fact a court document, again they are delusional, but that doesn't stop them. The same can be said for an attorney's signature, and is equally wrong. Most all of the attorneys I have known, don't/won't do it. They have secretaries or paralegals who are for that.

[SteveUK]

The Expert in FA has just uploaded the court bundle relating to the Canadian action thats stubbornly keeping our hero from total success!!1!!

https://www.scribd.com/document/3695967 ... urt-Bundle

It seems one of the lawyers had a genuine conflict of interest but rightly declared this. He argues the property he was was subject to an over valuation. It seems to be some sort of outdoors activity place, but the horrid old government then banned certain types of fishing which left the place significantly down on value. A bad rainy season meant, I think, a temporary halt on fishing was called.

The bank flogged it off when they fell behind

The lodges and water were sold for much much less than the plaintiffs paid for them 5 years ago, prior to investing a further CAD $1.5m.
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY, AS THINGS STAND CURRENTLY, THE PLAINTIFF CONSIDERS THIS TO BE A FRAUDULANT ACT. See exhibit F2.1, 2

Naturally the fraud accusations are flung about:

7.Justice Clendening stated in her lifting of the injunction, that she could not continue to enforce the injunction issued by the court as she had not heard any evidence in support of the case that proved “Fraud”

Then onto the "evidence" which seems to be a hundred or so photos of fishing magazines. Yup, madness.

Its a tedious 1000 page document with pretty much a total lack of FMOTL entertainment. Dont bother.

[AndyPandy]

You can kind of understand his frustration, originally it's valued at £5m but the bank do a fire sale for £460k, but unfortunately, that's what happens when you have a business based on the weather in a poor economic climate and you can't pay your mortgage.

[Hercule Parrot]

Then onto the "evidence" which seems to be a hundred or so photos of fishing magazines. Yup, madness.

Its a tedious 1000 page document with pretty much a total lack of FMOTL entertainment. Dont bother.

Wish I'd seen this before eagerly diving in. Quite bizarre, yes. Here's a photo of Mr and Mrs Michaels on honeymoon, to accompany the countless complaints about how stressful this has all been for Mrs M during her first pregnancy. And endless articles, photos and brochures about the luxury Atlantic Salmon fishing market sector.

Mr Michaels appears to be seeking permission to present this appeal himself, in the capacity of an officer of the holding company. I would be surprised if the courts permitted this. Firstly because he is the personal guarantor for much of the losses, and will put his own interests before those of the company. Secondly because he evidently has no clue how to litigate a complex matter like this.

The rationale for the appeal seems to be mainly that the bank should have given them more time, support and flexibility to bring the project into profitable trading. Which might be true, but no court is going to interfere in the risk management of business loans.

Then there's a potentially arguable point that his lawyer withdrew at the commencement of an important hearing in 2013 (trying to maintain an injunction upon the bank to prevent fire sale disposal) and the judge allegedly insisted that the hearing proceeded without opportunity to hire another lawyer. Not sure if it's worth anything after so much time has passed.

Then there's some paranoia and innuendo about something fishy (!) going on because the bank manager's sister went to school with the lawyer's next-door neighbour etc. No evidence, and I doubt he'll convince any court that there was a conspiracy to bankrupt his company and snap up the assets.

The overarching tone is of shock and aggrievance. Don't you understand, I am a wealthy international businessman and I expect my privilege and luxury to be maintained. If my house of cards collapses I might end up ordinary and poor, which is simply not acceptable. My wife had a dream last night that she was shopping in Aldi and coming home on a public bus, she hasn't stopped crying yet!

I feel sorry for him, this is going to be hard enough without the Expert in Fuck All getting involved.

[JimUk1]

It could be a simple case of him lying on his application for credit, inflating his projected profit ect...

As we saw before the great credit crunch and economic downturn, money was more abundant than water and people did go crazy, including myself, I was given a credit card limit with NatWest of £25,000, which at the time was 75%of my annual wage; unthinkable this side of the crunch.

Tbh I have little sympathy, they come across as over entitled spoiltchildren, living for the moment with little regard for the consequences.Money is hard to come by and easy to spend, and those whom can’t keep in the real world end up lose out massively.

indicated in paragraph 4 of her witness statement that at the time these proceedings were issued the Michaels were in arrears of £17,363.04 but at the time of her statement on 20th October, 2016, the outstanding arrears had increased to £52,093.52. The total amount outstanding was £1,224,102.70 and the current monthly instalments were £1,335.56.

And

It indicated amongst other matters that the bank had registered derogatory information with credit reference agencies which they felt did not reflect its own failures in the business transaction and that the credit rating had suffered to the extent that they could not refinance the property to bring a remedy to the situation

What did they expect?

Thousands of pounds in arrears, borrowing to pay debts and they wonder why their credit file was F****d.

Stupid stupid people.

[SteveUK]

Paul update. A couple more docs added to the misery files.

Up first is his affadavit, which ironically opens with "i am of sound state of mind". nothing to fascinating, but now he's going with the old 'the mortgage deed wasn't witnessed' angle. This is all the work of that winner (!!1!!) O'Bernica I imagine. Worked well for him.

https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukuser ... on%203.pdf

The second document is basically the court of appeal telling him to go and do one.

https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukuser ... %252c7.pdf

[AndyPandy]

I wonder if they're still taking advance bookings / deposits for stays at Low Newbiggin, seeing as they don't now own it and will probably be evicted very shortly - what's the law on that?

[katiHWB]

I wonder if they're still taking advance bookings / deposits for stays at Low Newbiggin, seeing as they don't now own it and will probably be evicted very shortly - what's the law on that?

looks like it to me - http://www.lownewbiggin.co.uk/book.php

[katiHWB]

I wonder if they're still taking advance bookings / deposits for stays at Low Newbiggin, seeing as they don't now own it and will probably be evicted very shortly - what's the law on that?

looks like it to me - http://www.lownewbiggin.co.uk/book.php

although ... there IS a warning on the "book now" page ( https://bookings.guestlink.co.uk/Modify ... =undefined )

The accommodation provider requires more warning of website bookings than can be given. Please contact Low Newbiggin House & Cottages directly on XXXXXXXXXXX.

[SteveUK]

I thought I'd check in on our old friends, as EFA posted recently. It seems he's now rounding up his marks, and having them waste the polices time reporting crimes not paying your debts, to the bank.

Please find attached the latest list of Lloyds Bank fraud victims

51 victims Lloyds Bristol

10 victims Lloyds North England/Scotland these exclude the 72 Lloyds Reading proven fraud victims and the Lloyds/HBOS reading victims approx. 30 not compensated.

Paul & Charlotte Michael have given me permission to add their names to the Lloyds Bank victim list. Please note their police crime ref Numbers:

NFRC 170902001711
CRN 12170203409

If any more get in touch by Sunday evening I will forward to you before your meeting Monday

I couldn't find much on their situation themselves, but their website probably says a thousand words:



That 600 page affidavit collection of fishing magazines, clearly didn't win through.

Success!!! 1!!!