Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

User avatar
Penny Wise
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:54 pm
Location: Deadlights

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby Penny Wise » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:36 pm

I like the update tweets


Massive news about my family's long-running legal battle with Bank of Scotland is due within the next 72 hours. #TGBMS #GameChanger


BREAKING: At the halfway stage in the #BattleForAshquornHouse, the judge is carefully pondering the irrefutable #evidenceoffraud. #TGBMS


Appeal dismissed on the ground that we didn't prove the receivers were illegally appointed, when that wasn't a ground for the appeal. #TGBMS


This point has already been proven in the high court and was binding upon the judge today, so her decision was made without jurisdiction.


The appeal was over a non-existent Powers of Attorney Deed, without which the receivers have no authority to act in the names of my parents.


The judge presided over another #miscarriageofjustice to prevent us from establishing a #remedy for all #dispossessed #mortgagors. #TGBMS


Can't wait to read the official judgement on this one
Wanna balloon?

JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:47 pm

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby JimUk1 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:09 pm

Made without jurisdiction?

Yet, if he won, it would be with jurisdiction I presume?

Further, why go to court if he judge had no jurisdiction?

#moron

:snicker:

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby SteveUK » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:13 pm

what a great win from the bearded one!!1!! his appeal must really be piling the pounds onto his legal bills.

well played that man.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby NYGman » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:31 pm

Penny Wise wrote:I like the update tweets


Massive news about my family's long-running legal battle with Bank of Scotland is due within the next 72 hours. #TGBMS #GameChanger


BREAKING: At the halfway stage in the #BattleForAshquornHouse, the judge is carefully pondering the irrefutable #evidenceoffraud. #TGBMS


Appeal dismissed on the ground that we didn't prove the receivers were illegally appointed, when that wasn't a ground for the appeal. #TGBMS


[SNIP]

Can't wait to read the official judgement on this one


So I guess it was refutable after all. That's funny :snicker:
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6467
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby The Observer » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:35 pm

Appeal dismissed on the ground that we didn't prove the receivers were illegally appointed, when that wasn't a ground for the appeal. #TGBMS


But wait, you said it was the basis for your appeal:

The appeal was over a non-existent Powers of Attorney Deed, without which the receivers have no authority to act in the names of my parents.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby TheNewSaint » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:47 pm

JimUk1 wrote:Made without jurisdiction?

Yet, if he won, it would be with jurisdiction I presume?

Further, why go to court if he judge had no jurisdiction?


I think he meant "the judge overruled a higher court ruling," not that she didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case at all.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5539
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:54 pm

JimUk1 wrote:Made without jurisdiction?

Yet, if he won, it would be with jurisdiction I presume?

Further, why go to court if he judge had no jurisdiction?


Happens here in Canada all the time but, in my experience, by defendants in criminal cases arguing, for moronic freeman reasons, that courts don't have the jurisdiction to hear criminal cases. Virtually all of my Poriskyite tax evaders tried this one based on various reasons that an educated twelve year old would laugh at. Did you know that there are actually two Canadas and Freemen live in the one that the courts don't have any jurisdiction over? I didn't know that either but Michael Millar, with great conviction, tried it in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. And conviction is how it ended up with Michael being convicted to a jail term.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
Penny Wise
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:54 pm
Location: Deadlights

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby Penny Wise » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:38 pm

http://www.thebernician.net/tgbms-rigge ... ikes-back/

At the stroke of noon today at the heart of the rigged system, a hearing of our appeal of a decision of the 1st Tier Tribunal of the Property Chamber [which upheld an appeal by a prospective buyer, challenging the Land Registry’s decision to uphold our legal objection to ownership of a property being transferred to him], was convened by the Property Chamber’s Upper Tribunal at the Royal Courts of Justice in London [pictured above].

The whole case turned upon two issues:

1. Whether two LPA Receivers have the right to sell and transfer ownership of Ashquorn House in North Shields, which has been held in a family trust since it was acquired in 2003; and

2. Whether, in any event, the 1st Tier Tribunal should have set aside the appeal of the prospective buyer, which resulted in their decision to overturn our legal objection to the transfer of ownership.

For the purposes of clarifying the answers to these two serious questions, the Upper Tribunal ordered that both parties produce all evidence relied upon, including a Powers of Attorney Deed which the prospective buyer claims conferred such powers upon the receivers; without which, it has already been established in Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014], the receivers do not have the legal authority to act in the names of the trustees, whether in the sale of Ashquorn House or any other property.

The document produced by the prospective buyer is a Powers of Attorney Deed, in which the Lloyds Banking Group conferred powers upon its employees, with the express exclusion of the anybody employed by another firm. This necessarily excludes the receivers, who work for a company called DTZ. The document, therefore, does not confer the right to act in the names of the trustees in the disposition of an interest over the trust’s property.

Whilst the sustaining of that point should have been sufficient for the appeal to succeed, in and of itself, the written evidence submitted amply demonstrated that the other party did not comply with the Property Chamber’s order to provide us with a copy of that document within the time allowed, which automatically means that the 1st Tier Tribunal should have struck out his appeal of the Land Registry’s decision, under section 9(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First Tier) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, which clearly states:

“The proceedings or case, or the appropriate part of them, will automatically be struck out if the applicant failed to comply with a direction that stated that failure by the applicant to comply with the direction by a stated date would lead to the striking out of the proceedings of that part of them.”

Very occasionally, one manages to get one’s legal adversary in a corner from which they can only emerge in defeat; on the simple basis that the arguments have already been won and the facts speak for themselves. Now is such an occasion, so right on cue, the rigged system has contrived unsustainable grounds to dismiss the appeal.

The judge has done so on this occasion by erroneously claiming that:

a. It has not been proven to her that the second void and illegal mortgage over the property, which is an amended version of a void mortgage that was removed from the register for failing to comply with section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, is invalid; and

b. She is not satisfied that the receivers were invalidly appointed, despite the fact that there is no valid and enforceable legal mortgage in existence, without which the right to appoint LPA Receivers cannot arise.

However, neither of those issues are relevant to this appeal, which is based entirely upon the non-existence of a valid Powers of Attorney Deed and the failure of the other party to adhere to the terms of the Property Chamber’s order relating to the production of documents.

Whilst the second issue was heard and acknowledged as being a valid ground, although not enough in her opinion for the appeal to succeed, the judge refused to deal with the first and primary issue – the POA point – by focusing on the above stated issues ,which are immaterial to these proceedings.

The last time we made an application to the Property Chamber, we were asking them to do the unthinkable and overturn the Land Registry’s decision to refuse to grant our application to cancel the original void mortgage over Ashquorn House; which they finally did in early 2015, after sitting on the decision for twenty months.

This time we were asking the Property Chamber’s Upper Chamber to overrule its Lower Chamber’s decision to overrule the Land Registry’s decision to uphold our objection to the transfer of ownership, which the judge should have granted upon the evidence alone.

Instead, she is going to order that we haven’t proved two points which we have not been asked to prove since October 22 2010, despite the undeniable facts that we proved that the first mortgage was illegal and void in 2014 at the same venue and the Land Registry agrees that the transfer of ownership should be canceled, on the grounds we have cited.

In other words, we have now proven beyond any doubt, to the High Curt and to the Land Registry, that the receivers do not have the legal authority to make any entries in the register in the names of the trustees; yet the judge today pretended otherwise, to protect the bank and its receivers from the consequences of their blatant frauds.

She almost certainly did so because, in the event justice was done, the Land Registry would have to deal with our renewed application to cancel all of the eleven mortgages we applied to cancel in 2013, which were made well before the properties were illegally sold by the receivers; on the ground that none of the mortgage deeds were properly witnessed, in breach of section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, as per Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014].

Despite the game-changing nature of our proceedings and their somewhat inevitable denouements, that is not the full extent of what would unfold in the event of our success in this appeal, which can be more specifically identified as an attempt to establish a rule of law which has the potential to prevent every sale of mortgaged property by a mortgagee-in-possession, since legal ownership is never taken by the banks to avoid Capital Gains Tax.

In short, the banks can only be relying upon the purported Powers of Attorney granted by a mortgagor in their Standard Mortgage Conditions, which, as we have already proven in Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014], cannot be conferred without a stand-alone Powers of Attorney Deed, which must comply with the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 and be executed by the donor of such powers.

The mind-blowing consequences of this point of law are that every sale of repossessed property, conveyed under non-existent Powers of Attorney by a bank’s solicitors, is rendered fraudulent, illegal and void; and that the Chief Land Registrar is liable for the losses incurred by every dispossessed mortgagor who succeeds in having such an illegal disposition canceled in an AP1 application to rectify the mistake in the register.

It therefore could not be clearer that the rigged system is doing all it can to prevent the establishment of a potential remedy for everybody who has been dispossessed of their property, under the purported authority of court orders which were founded upon fraudulent mortgage possession claims by the banks.

To put this in perspective, according to the Ministry of Justice, in excess of 750,000 properties were repossessed and sold by mortgagees, in the names of the respective residential mortgagors, over the last three decades. At an average price of just £100,000 per property, the Land Registry’s potential liability for the rectification of all those fraudulent entries is a staggering £75,000,000,000.

It is easy to grasp why her majesty’s judiciary would want to avert the possibility of every dispossessed mortgagor making such a claim for indemnification, since it would ultimately be her majesty’s treasury which would have to cover the cost of the compensation payouts.

It is also self-evident that, for this reason alone, no insurance company would even countenance offering a policy to any private legal entity whose officers wish to purchase the Land Registry, on the basis that only the treasury of a nation state could underwrite such potential losses.

Where we go from here will be obvious to those who have been following this interminable legal dispute since it began in June 2010 – we will exhaust all remaining routes of appeal, which means making an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which presides at the same venue as the Upper Tribunal.

What transpires from there will be as consistent as ever because we will not be leaving the battlefield until the final battle has been won, for the purposes of which we might require your assistance in raising the funds required to fight today’s decision.

Either way, we would all like to express our gratitude for the support we have received over the past seven years. Rest assured that it will never be forgotten.
Wanna balloon?

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5539
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:47 pm

What transpires from there will be as consistent as ever because we will not be leaving the battlefield until the final battle has been won, for the purposes of which we might require your assistance in raising the funds required to fight today’s decision.


So they want other people to fund their legal case which, if they won, would benefit only themselves.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10503
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:39 am

'strooth, but he's long winded and to no real purpose. After all that and his whole premise is built on the fantasy that there was no mortgage because it wasn't properly completed at the time it was originated, that and the fact that the original court had ordered the trustees to properly complete the document and make it valid after the fact as it should have been properly done at the time. So that whole long tired soliloquy is utter pointless and his premises wrong. I'm still amazed that anyone bought the property with that kind of manufactured cloud hanging over the title.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

SoLongCeylon
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:25 am

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby SoLongCeylon » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am

[b]Michael O'Bernicia‏ @TheBernician
Massive news about my family's long-running legal battle with Bank of Scotland is due within the next 72 hours. #TGBMS #GameChanger
5:05 AM - 23 Jun 2017
[/b]

A word to the wise, Mikey. Don't go shouting your mouth off until you know the outcome. :mouthshut: :mouthshut: :mouthshut: This guy's ability to turn a loss into a win is becoming Ebertesque. :brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall:

It is somewhat narcissitic of him to think his rag bag of followers really care that he his trying to recover a multi million pound property portolio. If he ever succeeded in doing so I can see him becoming the first ever champagne anarchist.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby SteveUK » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:33 am

I have to hand it to the hairy one, he's come up with the longest way of saying 'I lost' since the epic "the judgement explained BOOM" incident.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby grixit » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:54 am

Penny Wise wrote:http://www.thebernician.net/tgbms-rigged-system-strikes-back/

Waugh Waugh Waugh! wrote:
Very occasionally, one manages to get one’s legal adversary in a corner from which they can only emerge in defeat



But in Frikintardistan, very frequently, one manages to get oneself in a corner from which one can only emerge in delusion.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

aesmith
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:14 am

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby aesmith » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:27 am

notorial dissent wrote:'... After all that and his whole premise is built on the fantasy that there was no mortgage because it wasn't properly completed at the time it was originated, ...

If I'm remembering correctly wasn't the original defect in the mortgage due to the borrower failing to execute the deed correctly? If so that makes it even more bizarre ... "Please my Lord, I didn't do my bit of the mortgage paperwork correctly so please give me a free house"

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10503
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:30 am

It wasn't properly signed or notarized or something according to the current property law, but the judge just said it was a harmless error and ordered the trustees to properly sign and return the document, as in didn't give them any choice. If Michale O'Waaah wants to say there wasn't a mortgage, then all he has to do is give back the money they got and it is all over with.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

aesmith
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:14 am

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby aesmith » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:34 pm

Just noticed an impressive result claimed. Apparently just the fact that he was making his film has been a win ..
both the film and the facts will speak for themselves, as the Ministry of Justice has released data which shows that the number of annual mortgage repossessions enforced by the courts fell from around 25,000 to under 5,000, during the six year production period of TGBMS

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England
Contact:

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:07 pm

And how does that fall correlate with stricter mortgage approval standards (no more self certified 110% mortgage offers) and a general mild improvement in the economy with lower unemployment?
Not a factor, of course.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby SteveUK » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:53 am

Some good news from the hairy one!

Major #TGBMS News - we can now prove that BOS is claiming entirely fictitious interest on money that isn't owed.


Hmm, why is that?

BOS capitalised interest on alleged arrears of £3M for seven years, when only half of that credit was used by the trustees during the term.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

User avatar
Penny Wise
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:54 pm
Location: Deadlights

Re: Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

Postby Penny Wise » Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:59 pm

Except for the case posted, anyone have any info about any of the other hearings that he claims were held ?
Wanna balloon?


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Qwant [Bot] and 1 guest