Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[mufc1959]

Forgive me for allowing facts to come in the way of Michael O'Bonkers' story, but as I understand it:

- the judge held that, because the trustees' signatures hadn't been witnessed on the mortgage deed, there was no valid legal mortgage, but there was a valid equitable mortgage;
- the trustees were ordered to sign a new legal charge in favour of the bank - if they wouldn't sign it, the court would sign it instead;
- they refused to sign a new legal charge, the court signed it, the bank took possession and the property was sold.

Or did none of that happen?

[SteveUK]

thats essentially it. It wouldve been a fairly dull story, however , he tried to overpay the debt with a prom note, and also put a £200m lien on the bank.
Welcome to bonkersville.

[Bones]

Least we forget that the short hairy one, also helped Tom Crawfraud lose his home

Representation

16. At the outset of the hearing today Mr Crawford applied to have Mr O’Bernicia represent him as amicus curiae and McKenzie Friend. Mr O’Bernicia is not a lawyer but has evidently greatly contributed to the arguments Mr Crawford wishes to advance and to his skeleton argument.

17. I refused the application for Mr O’Bernicia to act as amicus as this was misconceived. An amicus is a court appointed lawyer to act independently of the parties, not on behalf of one of them. The application was then converted to have Mr O’Bernicia act as a lay representative. That I refused not least because I recalled from the 2nd February 2015 hearing that Mr Crawford was more than able to speak up for himself. I did allow Mr O’Bernicia to assist Mr Crawford as a McKenzie Friend. That has led at times during this hearing to Mr Crawford effectively repeating exactly what Mr O’Bernicia has been telling him as to legal submissions (audible to us all) but that has caused me no difficulty and I record here that Mr O’Bernicia has conducted himself with courtesy and respect for the court

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html

3.4 Other Proceedings

35. Action 0NE30032 was brought by Michael Waugh (Mr and Mrs Waugh's son) on behalf of the Trustees against the Bank and the Receivers. The nature of the claim is contained in paragraph 4 of the skeleton argument of the Defendants in the strike out application:

The claim is for damages in excess of £2m including "triple damages" for breaches of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the HBOS Re-organisation Act 2006 and the Fraud Act 2006… At the heart of his claim is the contention that the Trust's overdraft was discharged when in February 2010 the Claimant tendered to the Bank a promissory note in the amount of £3m. As a result the Claimant argues the Bank was not entitled thereafter to demand repayment of the overdraft or to appoint receivers.

36. On 22nd October 2010 Judge Walton struck out the claim certifying it as totally without merit. An application for permission to appeal was accompanied by written grounds of appeal from Michael Waugh. It is clear from paragraphs 4 - 7 of those grounds that it was to be argued that an unsigned copy of the facility letter which does not incorporate all its terms is not enforceable as a result of section 2 of the 1989 Act.

37. The application was refused by Lloyd LJ on 9th February 2011. He certified it as totally without merit but did not make a civil restraint order. His judgment includes:

The contention that the agreement between the parties represented by the facility letter is void because it does not comply with [s2 of the 1989 Act] is wrong. The section only applies to contracts for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land. The facility letter is not such a contract.

The fact that security by way of a legal charge over property was required as a condition of drawing down on the facility … does not make it an agreement for the creation of a charge over land.

The bank does not need to substantiate its losses as the appellant says. All it needs to do is to satisfy the Court that the trustees had borrowed the money and not repaid it. As the judge said the very fact that the trustees tendered a promissory note for £3 million is, at the very least, strong evidence that there was a substantial indebtedness outstanding.

Mikey is such a legal beagle raving looney

[littleFred]

Yes, indeed. After losing a number of family properties, Michael Waugh help Tom Crawford lose his.

Doubtless his current legal attempts will also be total failures.

[AndyPandy]

The latest, no idea what this all means !

http://www.thebernician.net/land-regist ... iverships/

[Bones]

The latest, no idea what this all means !

http://www.thebernician.net/land-regist ... iverships/

I can be of assistance, having run the above through the Google Translator (you have to select Bullshit into English) - it says that Michael is an idiot and that he can never back up the repeated claims he has made about this case. He was also one of the legal experts that helped Tom to lose his home and all the equity in it.

Indeed, Micheal felt that this judgement was a success and a win

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html

Choice extracts include

3.4 Other Proceedings

Action 0NE30032 was brought by Michael Waugh (Mr and Mrs Waugh's son) on behalf of the Trustees against the Bank and the Receivers. The nature of the claim is contained in paragraph 4 of the skeleton argument of the Defendants in the strike out application:

The claim is for damages in excess of £2m including "triple damages" for breaches of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the HBOS Re-organisation Act 2006 and the Fraud Act 2006… At the heart of his claim is the contention that the Trust's overdraft was discharged when in February 2010 the Claimant tendered to the Bank a promissory note in the amount of £3m. As a result the Claimant argues the Bank was not entitled thereafter to demand repayment of the overdraft or to appoint receivers.

On 22nd October 2010 Judge Walton struck out the claim certifying it as totally without merit. An application for permission to appeal was accompanied by written grounds of appeal from Michael Waugh. It is clear from paragraphs 4 - 7 of those grounds that it was to be argued that an unsigned copy of the facility letter which does not incorporate all its terms is not enforceable as a result of section 2 of the 1989 Act.

The application was refused by Lloyd LJ on 9th February 2011. He certified it as totally without merit but did not make a civil restraint order. His judgment includes:

The contention that the agreement between the parties represented by the facility letter is void because it does not comply with [s2 of the 1989 Act] is wrong. The section only applies to contracts for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land. The facility letter is not such a contract.

The fact that security by way of a legal charge over property was required as a condition of drawing down on the facility … does not make it an agreement for the creation of a charge over land.

The bank does not need to substantiate its losses as the appellant says. All it needs to do is to satisfy the Court that the trustees had borrowed the money and not repaid it. As the judge said the very fact that the trustees tendered a promissory note for £3 million is, at the very least, strong evidence that there was a substantial indebtedness outstanding.

On 29th February 2012 Michael Waugh, on behalf of the Trustees applied to set aside what he described as "the void order of Judge Walton". On 11th April 2012 Judge Walton refused to re-open the case on the grounds that it was concluded by virtue of the order of Lloyd LJ.

The Trustees then sought to quash the decision of Judge Walton by means of an application for judicial review. Permission was refused on the papers by Judge Langan QC on 22nd May 2012. On 28th June 2012, after hearing Mr Waugh in person I dismissed the application to renew and made a limited civil restraint order against Mr Waugh.

Sometime in 2013 the Trustees sought to bring criminal proceedings against the Receivers for what was alleged to be aggravated trespass and fraud by false representation. The prosecution was stayed and the Trustees were ordered to pay costs in the sum of £6,586.

On 26th July 2013 Norris J made an extended civil restraint order against the Trustees.


Least we forget the judgement

7 Conclusion

88. In the result I hold:

1. that there is no realistically arguable defence to the claim for the sums due under the facility letter and the Bank is entitled to summary judgment in respect of the sums claimed.

2. that the Trustees are not estopped from relying on the defects in the execution of the Legal Charge and that Mr Waugh is entitled to a declaration to that effect.

3. that the Legal Charge was, nonetheless, effective as an equitable charge. Whether or not the Bank is entitled to an order compelling the Trustees to execute further documents will be determined at the hearing when the judgment is handed down.

[Bones]

Also no one mention the second court case that Michael does not like to discuss

http://www.burges-salmon.com/practices/ ... update.pdf


Incomplete execution of security

A development loan was provided to a trust and secured by a
charge. The charge was signed by the individual trustees but
not witnessed. Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925
requires charges to be completed as a deed which, under
section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions),
required that the trustees signatures were witnessed. Without
the witness attestations, the document was not properly signed
as a deed and therefore failed to create a legal charge.

The document did however create an equitable charge
because it was in writing, contained all of the terms and was
signed by all the parties (in compliance with section 2 of the
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989). In a
subsequent action (No. 2), the bank obtained an order to
perfect the equitable charge into a legal charge.

[Bones]

http://www.thebernician.net/land-regist ... iverships/

The Land Registry has directed that, unless a private settlement is reached between the parties by the 10th of June, the matter will be transferred to the Property Chamber, which will be asked by the LR to rule that our objection has sustainable grounds and the receivers’ application is therefore fraudulent in nature, as are their purported LPA Receiverships over the property.

As this was supposed to happen nearly a month ago... anyone have any news about what happened? As Mickie O'Bumcia is quiet I am guessing he won !!!1!!!

[Bones]

More BS from Mickey

https://www.facebook.com/michael.oberni ... 6165745615

Warm salutations, my friends. After an extraordinary sequence of almost surreal events, I am the fortunate bearer of most unusual, encouraging news for millions of discouraged people, regarding my family's six year war of attrition with Bank of Scotland and its illegally appointed LPA Receivers and the dramatic implications for every void mortgagor on these islands.

Firstly, we have now received confirmation that the trustees' legal objection to the receivers' tenth fraudulent application to transfer ownership of one of the trust's properties [in the names of the trustees, under Powers of Attorney they claim were granted to the bank in its standard mortgage conditions] has been passed to the Property Chamber for adjudication.

The Land Registry has requested that the objection to the transfer be upheld, on the ground that the receivers have not been able to demonstrate that they have been validly appointed by the bank, under a stand-alone Powers of Attorney deed, which must be signed by the mortgagors and made in accordance with the Powers of Attorney Act 1971; without which the POA clause in the standard mortgage conditions is legally unenforceable and the bank therefore does not possess the right to appoint receivers to act in the names of the trustees.

The Land Registry has already accepted that, in such circumstances where the Property Chamber ratifies the decision to accept the trustees' objection as meritworthy, the trustees' 2013 applications to cancel nine previously registered illegal transfers of ownership, made by the receivers in the names of the trustees, must necessarily be granted retrospectively; and the Land Registry must indemnify the trustees for all the losses incurred as a result of the mistakes in the Charges Register, as per HHJ Behrens' decision in our own case, Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014], by which both the Property Chamber and the Land Registry are bound.

Secondly, the Land Registry has also agreed that, in the event the alleged witnesses to all 12 disputed mortgages fail to provide compelling evidence [under oath] that they witnessed my parents' signatures at the moment and place the mortgage deeds were signed [which none of them did], the registrations of the mortgages will all be retrospectively cancelled as void at law, under section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925; for failing to comply with section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, as per Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014], once again.

Thirdly, the High Court has served notice that the trustees' third claim, seeking to overturn every judgment that has gone against them since 22 October 2010, has been listed for a preliminary hearing on 11 August. Last time the bank and its receivers faced such allegations, they failed to file any form of defence because there is simply no sustainable argument available to them.

Fourthly, the trustees have been informed by a legal adviser at the Magistrates Court that the stay on their private criminal prosecution against the same defendants appears to be on the brink of being lifted, so that the matter can proceed to trial by jury. We are currently awaiting written confirmation that this has transpired.

And finally, having been re-edited for legal reasons, the completed version of TGBMS, including more previously unseen footage and a wonderful, specially composed soundtrack, written and arranged by the truly gifted Rick Taylor, is [all being well] within 10-14 days of being ready for international release.

It therefore seems reasonable to deduce that the much-anticipated release of the film is set to coincide with an unprecedented reversal of fortune in my family's case; which will be quickly followed by an explosive podcast, that will aim to provide Britain's 11.2 million void mortgagors with a How To Guide on having the registration of their illegal mortgages removed from the Charges Register, thereby setting themselves and their households free from the chains of institutionalised mortgage fraud.

Although the world appears to be careering down a slippery slope to all out war by criminal governments, against the people of just about every nation, never underestimate the unpredictable nature of what we are capable of when our backs are pressed tightly against a wall.

Giving up when all is not yet lost, is the only guaranteed way to lose the battles we face; but it must be stressed that battling mortgage fraud is certainly not for the faint-hearted, the weak or the vulnerable, since justice can only be obtained in the rigged system by winning a bitter war of attrition against armies of compassionless souls, whose sworn purpose is to destroy or subjugate you at any cost, in return for money, power and privilege.

Nevertheless, to all those brave souls who have stood or will stand, shoulder-to-shoulder, whether by choice or out of sheer necessity, in the civil war being waged against the banksters; from the bottom of my heart, I salute each and every one of you, for the invaluable contributions you have made and the multiple miscarriages of justice you have tirelessly suffered, when it would have been so much easier to surrender to the might of the bullying banksters.

My heart will sing with unbridled joy, when you have all recouped the value of what was stolen from you in full, along with adequate compensation for that which was destroyed and can never be replaced.

The Great British Mortgage Swindle will soon stand as both a historical cinematic testament to the sacrifices you were prepared to make, for the benefit of our children and grandchildren; and the unassailable power of refusing to lay down and die, even when all seems lost and dishonesty reigns.

Largely because of our collective efforts, the entire fraudulent conveyancing industry will soon collapse in slow-motion, under the ever-growing weight of professional negligence claims against thousands of solicitors, that will inevitably arise from the points of law established beyond doubt in our case. It it not a question of 'if' this happens; it is a question of 'when'.

In the meantime, please watch this space for news of further developments and the somewhat delayed release of the film. Much love to one and all.

Whilst reading it, I almost choked on the bs

[letissier14]

Funny how this has all come about just in time for the relaunch of his pathetic film

The guy is a moron

[AndyPandy]

Does anyone know what that actually means in English, my bs translator has packed up !

[Bones]

Whilst the expert on wins - Tom Crawfraud has declared Michael has won !!!!1!!!!

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 4yfbq18HXg



Both Michael and Tom appear to be forgetting that nothing has really changed in what Michael has now claimed from what the judgement was in Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014).

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html

5 Claims under the charge of Asquorn House

Points of Law

58. Before considering the estoppel argument it is convenient to set out a number of points of law which in my view are incontrovertible.

S 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925

59. Under this section all conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.

60. It will be noted that the section does not provide that the conveyance is void for all purposes. It is simply void "for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate".

61. In so far as Mr Waugh asserts that the defects in this case made the charge void for all purposes he is, with respect, wrong.

S 1(3) of the 1989 Act

62. This section is concerned with the execution of Deeds by individuals. Under this section:

An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if –

(a) it is signed –

(i) by him in he presence of a witness who attests his signature or

(ii) …

(b) …

63. It is not in dispute that the Trustees were individuals and that the Charge was not attested in accordance with the section. The lack of attestation appears on the face of the charge itself.

64. It follows that the Charge was not validly executed as a Deed. It also follows that it was void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate.

S 51 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

65. This section is concerned with the effect of registration of the charge at the Registry. It provides:

On completion of the relevant registration requirements, a charge created by means of a registrable disposition of a registered estate has effect, if it would not otherwise do so, as a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage.

66. Thus the effect of registration of the Charge was to create a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage. It is, of course, open to the Trustees to apply to the Registry for rectification of the register and they have availed themselves of this right. Rectification is, however, governed by Schedule 4 to the Act. As Mr Wilson pointed out there are a number of matters which need to be determined before the application could succeed. Those matters have, of course, been stayed pending the outcome of this application and very properly Mr Wilson did not address me on them.

67. Rectification operates for the future. There is no power to rectify retrospectively. See paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 and commentary in paragraph 46.017 of Ruoff and Roper – Registered Conveyancing. It follows that acts (such as the appointment of Receivers) carried out by the Bank under the charge prior to any order for rectification and acts of the Receivers are not void as alleged by Mr Waugh. Both the Bank and the Receivers were entitled to rely on the effect of registration of the charge.

Michael overlooks (on purpose)

Equitable Mortgage

A document, which for some defect of form (but which is otherwise valid) fails to take effect as a legal mortgage will (subject to section 2 of the 1989 Act) be a good equitable mortgage. The basis of this is the court's power specifically to perform a contract to create a legal interest in land. See Fisher & Lightwood Law of Mortgage 13th Ed at par 3.6 and the cases cited at footnotes 1 and 2.

Section 2 of the 1989 Act

83. This section provides:

(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contract are exchanged, in each.

(2) The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.

84. In this case the Charge was signed by both the Trustees and on behalf of the Bank. It expressly incorporated the Standard Terms.

Michael in the same vain as Tom did with his own case, declared this a victory but he wants this judgement overturned. The reason being is that in reality he lost and that despite all of his arguments (most the judge thought was stupid), his family still owed and had to repay the money.

7 Conclusion
88. In the result I hold:

1. that there is no realistically arguable defence to the claim for the sums due under the facility letter and the Bank is entitled to summary judgment in respect of the sums claimed.

2. that the Trustees are not estopped from relying on the defects in the execution of the Legal Charge and that Mr Waugh is entitled to a declaration to that effect.

3. that the Legal Charge was, nonetheless, effective as an equitable charge. Whether or not the Bank is entitled to an order compelling the Trustees to execute further documents will be determined at the hearing when the judgment is handed down.

There is also a second case that Michael never mentions in which the Court ordered a new charge to be signed by the Trustees.

Michael claims that he has won every few months, then goes quiet until it is time to promote his film which has been waiting so long to be released, it was originally filmed in Black and White.

[notorial dissent]

Is there actually an executive summary of this without all the going around in circles?

[houseoflard]

Is there actually an executive summary of this without all the going around in circles?

- The Trusts's LPA Receivers tried to transfer the tenth property in the estate to the buyer.
- Michael filed an objection with the Land Registry to the transfer (bypassing the Court system, from which he was under a Civil Restraint Order).
- The Land Registry, having no powers of adjudication, passed it to the Property Chamber. The Property Chamber is the Land Registry's tribunal and the matter will be heard by a District Judge.
- Michael claims the Land Registry have asked the PC to uphold the objection to the transfer, based on the precedent established in Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others. [Note - This is bullshit. The Land Registry does not have the power to make such a request. Only the Property Chamber can make any form of declaration.]
- The Land Registry have stated that if the LPA Receivers fail to provide evidence of their case then all of the mortgage registrations of the Trust properties will be cancelled. [Note - This would require an Order to that effect from the Property Chamber which Michael does not, and will never, hold.]
- Michael has appealed Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others a third time, with a preliminary hearing listed in the High Court for 11 August. [Note - Either his Civil Restraint Order has now expired, or this hearing is listed to decide if he's allowed to file the appeal under the terms of his CRO. This is standard procedure and the answer will be 'no'.]
- Michael thinks the stay on his private prosecution of the LPA Receivers is on the brink of being lifted, because a Legal Advisor at the Magistrates Court apparently told him so.

The only thing he's really saying is that he's bypassed the terms of his Civil Restraint Order by having the dispute referred to the Property Chamber instead of the County Court. The PC will of course declare this claim as being totally without merit, as will the High Court in his latest appeal. I doubt Michael will tell his followers about those decisions when the time comes.

[notorial dissent]

houseoflard thanks that helps make sense out of what is, at least to me total nonsense, now is there an executive summary of how the trust and/or receivers to to that point and Michael of Wah started his campaign of confusion? I'm only used to daytime soaps and telanovellas so British court drama is a bit outside my experience.

[Pox]

Houseoflard got a flaming from the GOODF lot for posting his critical analysis of the short hairy ones pronouncement above -

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 0&t=100866

[Firthy2002]

Of course GOODF were going to flame him, they're a bit truth-averse.

[Dr. Caligari]

Houseoflard got a flaming from the GOODF lot for posting his critical analysis of the short hairy ones pronouncement above -

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 0&t=100866

...and it doesn't take long for the anti-Semitism to come out:

The hook nosed kabal with their entourage of clowns will be getting the 70 A D treatment in the very near future .

[NYGman]

I mean really, does the anti-Semitic ramblings add anything to the discussion, ever, besides confirming the stupidity of the poster and belaying their true prejudices. I am guessing it is easy to refer to banks in a derogatory and disparaging way, rather than argue a point, answer a question, or engage in a true debate on the issues. So while they go ahead and blame the "hook nosed kabal with their entourage of clowns" and other invisible bogymen, for their problems, the real cause of many of these peoples issues is much closer, and can easily be found in the nearest reflective surface. If they used 1/10th of the energy that they wasted on conspiracy theories, hatred, and listening to bad gurus, they could actually learn something useful.

[houseoflard]

Of course GOODF were going to flame him, they're a bit truth-averse.

I wondered if they were going to delete me instead. I've just clarified a few points for them but suspect they're not interested.