This is an account of how the RM, like millions of others on these lands, was scammed by a bankster and a duplicitous solicitor into entering a criminal agreement  and therefore a void mortgage with a collective of racketeers known as the Bradford & Bingley. Now revealed as TGBMS, he was victim to a swindle that followed a centuries’ old blueprint by which they extorted thousands of pounds from him and, not content with that, (when he stopped paying into the protection racket) eventually stole all he had and evicted him on to the street with the unlawful assistance of Nottinghamshire Police Force.

The criminal Banksters pretended that they had loaned him real moneys of exchange with which to buy a home. In order to deceive him into believing it was a valid mortgage, they employed a solicitor to assist them in their racketeering. Little did the man know that the solicitor was conflicted in his interests ~ he was simultaneously representing the man’s interests and the bankster’s.

This essay is, like a single malt whiskey, distilled to its essence, so please have a critical sniff before you swallow it. I have attempted to unveil a complex series of financial and legal tricks in order to reveal the scam in a way that can be understood by anyone with the ability to read and apply his critical thinking to the matter. It should also be read in conjunction with The Chronology of a Void Mortgage.

Step-by-step, it reveals the various financial and legal deceptions that were operating throughout the formation of the void mortgage. It is based throughout on the RM’s first-hand knowledge of the matter and the research he (and notable others) have carried out into an iniquitous game of poker in which the ‘mortgagor’ is placing not only his chips on the rigged table but also his very home.

The stakes are as high as that and the Casino wins 100%, every time because it knows that, no matter how great the punter’s hand, he will fold in the face of the House’s tried and tested methods of coercion ~ after all, who wants to take the gamble he will be thrown out of his house?

You may not be surprised to hear it but RM decided to take that gamble. As it turned out, however, he did have a great hand ~ four of a kind, you might say…

The essay, which is in effect a forensic analysis of the formation of a void and criminal mortgage, includes sanitised extracts from a Letter of Claim against the Professional Indemnity Insurance policy of the negligent solicitor whose role it was to procure a most valuable security on behalf of the Bankster. The analysis applies to all mortgages procured in the ‘UK’ since 1989.


Back in 1994, RM was working as a teacher. He was renting accommodation at a friend’s house. When the friend returned from a two year sojourn in Japan, RM was in need of a place to live.

He had saved up some £3500 for a deposit on a home and he began looking for a house to buy and in May/June of that year, he found one that suited his requirements and determined that he should enter into a lawful agreement for a mortgage so he could buy the house.

The origins of the ‘Mortgage’ [‘Dead Pledge’] go back at least to William the Bastard. In 1066, he brought with him the Jews of Europe with

a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English Law….Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement – shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or “Jewish Gage,” was a lien on all property…” (The Shetar’s Effect on English Law)

At that time, RM had two friends in Nottingham whom he trusted and reasonably believed would be able to assist him in the formation of a lawful loan.

One, “P” was known to him since 1982 when they had first met, when P was a Geography student at Huddersfield Polytechnic and RM was a sixth former in the same town. P was now the ‘Bank Manager’ of a Branch of the Bradford & Bingley (Building Society, as was).

The second, “E”, was another friend he had known since 1988 and he worked as a ‘solicitor’, with experience in the ‘conveyancing’ of property, which necessarily included some ‘expertise’ in mortgage matters.  Or, at least, that was the impression he gave RM.

Both agreed they had the ability to help him in the formation of a valid mortgage agreement by which he could become the equitable owner of the property, with said ownership recorded at the Land Registry.  As his friends, they were doubly-trusted to provide him with valid and lawful services. Unfortunately, this trust was misplaced as both were, in fact, engaging in a duplicitous game in which they would take substantial commissions from the B&B on the procurement of the bogus Deed of Mortgage and the RM himself into a criminal racket of global proportions.

The arrangement of the mortgage with P went as smoothly as he had verbally assured RM it would ~ an application for a mortgage was filled in under P’s attendance. Significantly, at no point did P or any official at the B&B sign any documentation to validate the agreement, which is a requirement at law.

E, meanwhile, was employed to provide him with “care and attendance” throughout in order to explain any and all of the legal issues commensurate with the formation of a Lawful mortgage.

However, as it turned out, both were operating fraudulently in that they deliberately omitted to disclose to him the full facts of the matter.

In essence, it amounted to this: RM would be duped into unknowingly gifting the B&B a valuable financial instrument. This security, in the form of the ‘Deed of Mortgage’ would be procured for the Bank by E, the solicitor who, in what was a clear and admitted conflict of interest, was also under contractual obligation to the Bank and due to receive a commission for his role in the scam. This fact was not disclosed to RM until he received an email from E in April 2013, almost 19 years later.

The Deed of Mortgage, albeit it a fraudulent document, was a valuable security (a promissory note, which in the words of Lord Denning, was “as good as cash”) which the B&B, with the solicitor’s assistance, procured from RM and deposited as an asset at the bank (as all banks do with all loans).

In reality, which is 180′ from the way it is presented to the (dumbed down) populace, anyone who has signed a loan agreement (including any and all mortgages) is the Creditor of the Bankster; not the debtor.  Quite how this manifested will be familiar to anyone who has at any time entered into a mortgage agreement.

It is a fake-debt-based usury system of oppression: nobody owes the banks a penny. It is a treacherous enslavement in so far as it is carried out on behalf of a shiftless ruling aristocracy whose over-arching control is in the bloody hands of the House of Rothschild and its Zionist Banking minions, an elite ruling class that has committed genocide against all peoples of the earth and will continue to do so, until we the people deem it otherwise and stop going along with it.




“P”, Bank Manager/Magician/Mortgage Broker. “Anyone fancy a flutter?”

The above photo of P was taken a few years ago at a sports’ club “Casino Night” event. It is a picture worth a thousand words in that it serves to illustrate how the mortgage scam operates by way of various sleights of hand and conjury, all of which operate simultaneously upon the duped punter who, through these means, becomes debtor to the bankster who, as a matter of accounting fact, never loaned him any moneys at all.

For the purposes of this essay, we will focus on four of the primary devices that were deployed by the Bank and the abject failure of E, the Solicitor, to provide the genuine level of service expected of him.

DEVICE A: ‘False Receipt and false declaration of ownership’

The keystone to the scam is the ‘Deed of Mortgage’ (below), which was signed by RM on or around 28 July 1994. Founded in ancient Babylon, engineered into the Jewish Shetar, it has morphed down the centuries into a tool of deception and enslavement, designed to serve the interests of those money lenders who operate under a tyrannical system of Global Rothschild-Zionist Banking practices.

Above: Exhibit 1. the Fraudulent Deed of Mortgage. Top left: Date inserted by E in his handwriting [an act of forgery]
It is a False declaration~ RM was neither (1) the ‘Borrower’ nor (2) the ‘Beneficial Owner’ at the moment of execution = FALSE declaration. This is the scam upon which the whole edifice of deceit is built and the identification immediately invalidates the Deed and the Mortgage.

Look at it closely. Look at your own Deed of Mortgage and see the facts for yourself. The Deed is fraudulent on its face. This fact alone is sufficient to make it void. As you can see, it falsely states, in material part, “1. The Borrower as Beneficial owner hereby charges the Property by way of legal mortgage… with (i) payment of all monies payable by the Borrower to the Lender … as more particularly detailed in the Mortgage Conditions and (ii) the performance by the Borrower of all the Borrower’s other obligations under this Mortgage”.”

Thus, the ‘Deed of Mortgage’ operated as a false receipt as it was signed and delivered by RM at around 2 weeks pre-dating the “NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF ADVANCE”, dated “15 August 1994”.

This, when one grasps it, is a breathtakingly audacious trick: if we were to reverse the roles, it would be the equivalent of the RM going into a Bank and saying to the Manager,

“Ok, some time within the next three weeks, I’m going to make a deposit into the bank of one million pounds, so you now agree you owe me a million quid.  Could you please sign this receipt? No, don’t worry about a written agreement, that’s not necessary ~ and take note that I’m also reserving the right not make the deposit. Oh, and one further thing, I may change the agreement at any time. Don’t bother to date it, I’ll fill that in later.”

Therefore, as and when the ‘Deed of Mortgage’ was executed by RM and delivered to E, the solicitor, the sworn statement was objectively false. RM, the nominal ‘borrower’ only, wanted the loan so that he could first become the ‘beneficial owner’ of the property, and then register such ownership with the Land Registry; and yet at the moment of execution, he had not received a penny from the B&B (neither was he the ‘beneficial owner’ at the time of execution as he did not move into the house until the end of August 1994).

However, don’t be thinking this was a mere technicality because the bank then placed essential and material reliance on the mortgage receipt clause in its sourcing (conversion/creation) of funds for the purported ‘loan’. As stated in, “IT’S CRIMINAL BY DESIGN” by Tim Madden,

Time is of the essence, and if a writing (as a legal document) is a false document as and when nominally executed, then no subsequent treatment can cure that defect between the parties.”

Now, let’s just focus on what was going on with the solicitor here. For reasons that will become all-too-apparent, E omitted to advise RM of this blatant fact and thus, under his purported “attendance” and “care”, E counselled/conned RM into executing a false instrument, thereby entering a fraudulent agreement which had the ultimate consequence, some 16 years later, of him suffering real property loss, homelessness and being left without legal recourse.

The following is taken directly from the ‘Deed of Mortgage’ as ‘gifted’ to the B&B. Note, at the time of execution by RM, the nominal borrower, not so much as a penny had been received and he didn’t expect to receive the ‘advance’ for a number of weeks. The credit was subsequently purportedly ‘advanced’ around 2 weeks after he had carried out E’s instruction to sign, swear, and deliver to him the B&B’s standard ‘Deed of Mortgage’.

The false receipt device is explained thus by Tim Madden:

Again, time was of the essence, and the statement/document was plainly false as and when autographed/signed and delivered-in-fact. Further, such is not a side issue – evidencing the fact of executed consideration (a receipt) is the primary and stated purpose of the writing itself.” (1)

It is to be noted that not only was the receipt clause categorically false, as and when the security was executed and delivered (2), but the B&B also flagrantly misrepresented the facts about the substance of the thing itself. Even the ‘advance’ was simply credit that was eventually ‘flipped back’ (from the deposit of the valuable security RM had unknowingly ‘gifted’ to the B&B) in part to RM, the nominal borrower. That was all it ever was – credit. ‘Credit’ is not ‘lawful money of the UK’ but instead operates as a non-legal tender substitute for currency which, ipso facto, does not have the status of legal tender.

It stands to reason that any subsequent dealing of any kind, including the receipt of any and all payments under this so-called loan and through the false instrument, was automatically an offence against The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (laundering proceeds of crime) (c.29) (POCA) (3):

Money laundering is defined as an act which constitutes an offence under S.327, 328 and 329 or a conspiracy or attempt to commit such an offence. Money laundering includes counselling, aiding or abetting or procuring.” (4)

The significance of this may take a while to take root in the reader’s mind because, only when he thinks it through and truly grasps it, will he come to the enormous realisation that it appears that any lawyer in the jurisdiction known as the ‘United Kingdom’ who is or has been complicit in the procurement of a false instrument from his client in the form of a fraudulent valuable security/asset which is used for the unjust enrichment and unfair advantage of the other party over the one to whom he has a primary duty of care is, by definition, complicit in money laundering.

Below, “E”, RM’s erstwhile friend and paid (by both parties) solicitor.

Hey, E! Do you know the going rate for a solicitor engaging in money laundering and constructive forgery and other organized crime offences? Last time I looked, it was up to 14 years!”



Above: Exhibit 2, the bogus “OFFER OF MORTGAGE ADVANCE” (extract)

In common with the overwhelming majority of mortgages in Britain, the B&B used the device of fictitious or illusory consideration (5) whereby the “Deed of Mortgage” stated that RM, as the nominal ‘borrower’, transferred ownership of the mortgage to the B&B in exchange for the B&B’s bare agreement to make a loan or advance (6). As succinctly expressed by Tim Madden,

It is illegal and contrary to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) for a bank (or any lender or creditor) to hold out its agreement to loan as a separate or distinct consideration or service from the loan itself.”

This illusory consideration is evidenced by the B&B’s unsigned “OFFER OF MORTGAGE ADVANCE”, dated 14 June 1994. Said offer deliberately and ambiguously stated that,

Your Application for a Mortgage Advance has been approved upon the terms of this Offer of Advance, which includes the Special Conditions and Additional Terms overleaf.”

Given the legal definition of the word ‘include‘ (7), the sleight of hand being used here becomes transparently clear: the only offered consideration by the B&B was its ambivalent and conditional agreement (‘has been approved’) to make the ‘Advance’ “upon the terms” of its “Offer of Advance” which was, in deliberately misleading legal terminology, merely the “Special Conditions and Additional Terms”.

This deceptive use of legalese, is a deliberately ambiguous use of language designed only for the purposes of entrapment. Thus, there was literally nothing being offered by the Bank other than this illusion of an “advance”: ipso facto, its ‘consideration’ was fictitious and the ambiguous wording of the “OFFER OF ADVANCE” was knowingly used in order to conceal this fact. They were offering fuck all, thanks to the deliberately misleading and fraudulent wording of said offer.

The stated consideration in the ambivalent form of the ‘Offer of Mortgage Advance’ contained in Exhibit D was thus deliberately designed to deceive and specifically illegal in the case of the B&B. As further stated by Tim Madden,

the bank is in the business of knowing it, and its executive officers must swear under oath and penalty of perjury that it knows it (under the bank’s Annual Report(s)). Further, no borrower has the capacity to allow or to agree to allow a bank, or anyone else, to violate the many and varied laws against the practice.”

E patently and deliberately failed in his ‘expert’ capacity to advise RM of this illegal practice because he was simultaneously representing the Bankster’s interests and they were paying him for his part in the deception. If P was the Casino manager, E was the Dealer at the rigged poker table, with RM, the sucker who had pulled up a stool (so to speak). The Croupier’s loyalty is always to the one who pays him the most. That is precisely how all solicitors are compromised when they engage in this fraudulent game of poker: they deal the cards and their house-master is the bankster.

Thus, RM’s signature on the false ‘Deed of Mortgage’ was attained by means of fraudulent inducement in the shape of the fictitious or illusory consideration of the B&B.

In simple terms, RM, the nominal ‘borrower’, would somehow transfer ownership of the mortgage on a property he was not in possession of at the time to the bank in exchange only for the bank’s ambivalent agreement to make an “advance” which “included”, by definition, only the terms and conditions. RM, under E’s counsel, thus found himself the victim of a nudum pactum.(8)


In other words, under E’s self-acknowledged professional “care” and “attendance” (9), RM was deliberately mis-advised by his trusted lawyer to sign a false receipt ~ an acknowledgment of a non-existent ‘debt’ on moneys he had not received at the time of the execution and delivery of the deed, thus rendering it an ultra vires contract (10) and void ab initio.

Below: Exhibit 3: E’s bare instruction to the RM to sign the IN-YOUR-FACE-FRAUDULENT Deed of Mortgage, without even so much as a final sum being acknowledged. E subsequently committed an act of forgery when he inserted the date in his own handwriting. (see Exhibit 1)

To reiterate, as incredible as it may seem, the B&B’s only ‘consideration’ was its ambivalent agreement to make the ‘advance’ which was, to the exclusion of anything else, the ‘terms and conditions’. Thus, the stated consideration was, in and of itself, a chimera.

The banks are not only taking the piss, they are flicking it back in your eyes.

If the reader’s anger isn’t beginning to mount by now, then it might be best if he stopped right here and went away to contemplate the enormity of this most loathsome of scams ~ the Bankster and Solicitor are literally taking every ‘mortgagor’ for a total mug and metaphorically laughing uproariously in his gormless face, all the while creaming in commission from the septic teat of the Bankster’s Casino of Treachery.

As a matter of fact, aside from the administrative costs of the bank, which would have been a tiny fraction of the value (short and long-term) of the security they received, the only consideration of any substantive value was the executed ‘Deed of Mortgage’ itself which was [notwithstanding it being a forged instrument] in and of itself, a valuable asset, which was deposited in a special account and became recorded as such on its annual report covering the relevant financial year. Furthermore, it could be traded by the Bank, to which it had an ultimate value of, at the very least, THREE TIMES that of the purported loan. (Note: this is without contemplation of how the operators of the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) were CRIMINALLY fixing the INTEREST RATES (11) throughout the period of the void mortgage).

The upshot of which was that RM, all the while under E’s trusted ‘counselling’, had fallen prey to the cynically exploitative global racketeering practice called a ‘mortgage’ whereby the B&B induced him by means of chimerical consideration into executing and delivering, upon the instruction of his solicitor, a most valuable security which was then treated as a ‘gift’ and deposited as an entry on the Bank’s books with the Bank bringing only illusory consideration to the purported contract.

Are we beginning to wake up to the treachery here?

Remember, these casino games of the coked-up-million-quid-bonused-up-Criminal-Rothschild-Zionist-Banksters and their lackeys are being played with your home as the security, all the while with the quiet-if-not-silent complicity of their public-school-boy-chums in ‘parliament’, the morally bankrupt monarchy and the abject surrender of the media who never get anywhere near to investigating the scam, let alone informing the people of it.

If this is not treacherous psychopathic behaviour, then what is?


The highly-prized security could then be assigned or sold on to any one of its offshore Trusts and/or Special Purpose Vehicles, and from there ‘bundled up’ with others to be further sold to investors as Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) on the basis that RM, the ‘poor sucker’ who signed it, had, in good faith, pledged to pay monthly amounts of his sweat equity in moneys of exchange at a variable and criminally fixed interest rate for the next 25 years.

All of which gives rise to the question,

Why would any competent lawyer solicit, or even allow, his client and friend to sign documents that stated a fictitious and plainly illegal consideration from the other party, contrary to the most basic laws of accounting?’

The answer, of course, is that E’s self-professed “care” and “attendance upon” RM in “order to explain all documentation” was utterly fraudulent because, at best, he simply did not have the required depth of professional knowledge to provide the reasonably expected levels of proficiency that RM was paying him for. At worst, as previously mentioned, he was being paid a commission by the bankster for the aforementioned procurement of the highly-valued Deed. A fact he did not disclose for 19 years.


The fictitious or illusory consideration ruse operated simultaneously with the ‘bait and switch’ device. The bait came in the form of  the B&B’s “OFFER OF MORTGAGE ADVANCE”, of 14 June 1994 which stated its bare (empty) agreement to make the ‘Advance’ which was masquerading as a genuine loan:

Your Application for a Mortgage Advance has been approved upon the terms of this Offer of Advance, which includes the Special Conditions and Additional Terms overleaf.”

It was bare because when one looks beyond the ambiguous language one sees that its purpose was nakedly fraudulent – the sham ‘Offer’ was the bait.

Even if this agreement to loan were of itself a real and legal consideration, it was negated by the disclaimer in the same (Exhibit 2) which states,

The Society reserves the right not to proceed with the Advance or to modify these terms at any time before the Advance has been made” and the further disclaimer in the ‘Deed of Mortgage'(Exhibit 1), which states, “This Mortgage secures further advances but the Lender is not obliged to make any.”

Notwithstanding the cited Law of Mortgages, Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the Theft Act 1968, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2003, the Companies Act 2005, the Fraud Act 2006 and/or UK GAAP regulations, the presence of a disclaimer that the bank was not bound to make an “advance” (loan) switched the express prior statement,

Your Application for a Mortgage Advance has been approved upon the terms of this Offer of Advance”

in and of itself, into a false pretense (or an objectively false representation).

In the words of Tim Madden,

It is classic bait and switch. It is also mala en se or evil/wrongful of itself, meaning fraudulent on the face of it because it is directly contradicted and expressly over-ridden by the NO OBLIGATION TO ADVANCE clause, the initial bait clause can have no logical purpose other than to deceive.

Thus, with the intent to provide for its own unearned/unjust enrichment at the expense of RM, the purported ‘borrower’, the bank held out its phony and non-binding nominal agreement to loan as good and valuable consideration, substantially in the amount of the purported loan, in order to induce RM to execute and deliver the valuable security/money asset in favour of the bank materially before the bank had provided any credit-in-fact.

In the UK the specific criminal offence is under S.15a of the Fraud Act 2006 (12). In the present case, the B&B deceptively obtained possession and ownership of the valuable security (the Deed of Mortgage) by fraud or false pretence and with the assistance of E. As Tim Madden substantiates,

The bank appears to legally obtain possession and ownership of the money/asset/security while incurring no liability in law (because of the disclaimer). That is the switch.”

It therefore stands as a fact that the mortgage was a fraud on its face and no amount of obfuscation by way of fallacious appeal to ‘common practice’ can hide that fact ~ quite why and how E failed to draw it RM’s attention is only now too obvious.


It is, as any competent accountant would confirm, illegal for a financial institution to record or otherwise treat or traffic in its agreement to advance as a separate or distinct consideration from an advance itself (as bait or otherwise). This is among the most basic and essential rules of institutional accounting. It is a rule against double counting.” (Tim Madden)

This begs the question, ‘how could that happen if the solicitor was providing him with a bona fide service?’

RM was the one who brought the only thing of equitable substance to the transaction ~ the hypothecation/pledge of his future income yet he, like every other mortgagor to whom the same applies, walked away the legal debtor of the B&B.

As expressed by Tim,

It is illegal and contrary to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles/Practices) for a bank (or any lender or creditor) to hold out its agreement to loan as a separate or distinct consideration or service from the loan itself.”

The bank was offering him its conditional agreement to make an “advance” (on the moneys it would be leveraging from the extremely valuable security he would be unknowingly gifting them and part of which the Bank would be ‘flipping’ back to him in the form of ‘credit’; not an “advance” from its own deposits) at some indeterminate time in the future.

In this sense, it was not offering him a loan of any real substance. It was all an elaborate bluff: it was committing to nothing, its ‘offer’ which was a conditional agreement (which it may or may not stick to) to ‘advance’ him a line of credit created by and from the deposit of the very asset (the Deed of Mortgage) it cunningly procured from him by failing to disclose its real value and purpose.

And therein lies the ‘switch’. Examined with  strict objectivity, it was a palpable act of Fraud.(13)

Metaphorically and literally, P, the banker (B&B) arrived at the transaction with empty pockets – he brought nothing and contributed nothing that he did not obtain from RM, the nominal borrower – yet he walked away from the transaction as the legal creditor of the nominal borrower. All of which took place under the auspices of E’s professional services

(Below, Exhibit 4, ‘Invoice for E’s Sham ‘Attendance’, ‘Care’ & Explanation “of all documentation”) .



It is now clear that the standard provision and the two disclaimers in the ‘Offer’ and the ‘Deed of Mortgage’ that RM, the nominal ‘borrower’ was bound unconditionally but that the alleged lender was not bound to make an advance, had the effect of the transaction becoming a wager-in-law. (15)

The larger agreement as stated in the mortgage was that, in exchange for the bank’s bare offer to ‘advance’, RM was to agree that he owed the bank £34,150 plus interest even if the bank changed its mind and did not make an advance. By way of the bait, he was thus induced into making a wager that was immoral and against the public interest, irrespective of the unscrupulous common practices of the banks, the Land Registry, the FOS (as was), lawyers and judiciary who erroneously believe it to be somehow ‘legal’ when in fact it is an affront to equity and unlawful under the Common and Ancient laws of these lands. However, as the Maxim states,

Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud.”

How the B&B then decided on whether to make an advance after it had procured the money/asset/security is irrelevant. It was the fact of making it a chance event that created the wager-in-law. This had the effect of RM, all the while under E’s supposed professional “care” and “attendance”, being induced into literally taking a gamble on an illusory offer. It was the fact of making it a chance event (a gamble) that created the wager-in-law.

It is also of note that the absence of signature on any of the documents from the bank meant P was thus offering no commitment to make a loan nor, in conjunction with the everyday practice of HMCTS, incurring any liability that a county court would enforce, regardless of the facts (as RM found out to his great cost).

The question to be answered is plain: ‘Why would any competent solicitor encourage or even allow, his client to sign a document claiming to be a security, but which is on its face and by express terms a wager – racketeering by definition?’ (16)

In this case, it is posited that a truly reliable and genuine solicitor, who is mindful of his client’s interests may well have expressed it thus,

So, RM, the B&B are saying they agree conditionally to make the “advance” but they may not do so. You sign that deed (but don’t whatever you do, date it) and they may or may not make the advance. It’s up to them. By the way, do you know the legal definition of the word, ‘include’?  RM, can you not see how they are promising you ‘sweet FA’? Think about it: why has the Bank not signed any document, let alone sealed one? Why do you imagine they don’t sign anything? let alone, a lawful contract with you as required by the Law of Property Act 1989, section 2?17 It came into full effect nearly 5 years ago and the bank is ignoring it! Here, take a look, I’ve got a copy. You do realise it’s a wager? Are you sure you want to take the gamble? My honest advice, having applied due care and diligence to all the documentation, is that you shouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. It’s a scam.”

Now, would that not have been genuine advice worth paying for?

The above scenario is added further poignancy when we factor in the trust that had existed between RM and E since their friendship began in 1988 for it stands as just the kind of exchange that would and should have taken place had E been authentically qualified in that which he was being paid to be ~ his friend’s trusted legal advisor.

Thus, the execution of the Deed of Mortgage was a gamble and the disclaimer clause in and of itself meant it was not, in any sense, an equitable one ~ the B&B being in the position analogous to that of a Casino owner whose croupiers, the Solicitors who are duplicitously working all the while for the Casino (Bank) armed with bogus ‘legal’ disclaimers to the contrary, deal out marked cards from a rigged deck.

The actual accounting behind the device is expressed here by Madden:

By putting the agreement into the form of a wager the bank is able to nominally book or capitalize the value of the mortgage as its own property (like an entry fee) which it then flips back to the purported borrower as an award of newly created (interest bearing) credit (the prize) directly supported by the bank’s acquisition of a right of property in the mortgage itself under the pretense of security.”

By way of further explanation, he continues thus,

To truly appreciate the aberrant nature of these practices, however, apply the same techniques to deposit accounts. Ask a banker if he will give you a signed receipt for a million dollar deposit, and say that you will return in a day or so to actually make the deposit. Ask a banker if the bank will agree that it owes you $1 million in exchange for your bare, nominal, and non-binding agreement to deposit $1 million. What banks do on purported loans is not just irregular – it is in-your-face criminal.”



Therefore, as  forensically proven in the identification of the four devices that were operating, the fact the mortgage contained all four of the above illegal or demonstrably false devices (the conjuring tricks), any one of which in law made the mortgage void and unenforceable, had the effect of rendering E (and his bonding/insurance institution) responsible for the financial losses suffered by RM.

In April 2013, RM took the decision to make an equitable claim against the insurance policy of E.

This, dear reader, was not a decision the RM took lightly ~ he values friendship and remains loyal to all his friends until, that is, a time comes when he discovers they are not worthy of his friendship.  It is worth noting that both E and P, when informed of the RM’s research into the whole mortgage scam (back early 2009), became markedly ill-at-ease. E, in fact, when asked if he had the documentation dating back to the formation of the ‘dead-promise’, claimed that all documentation had been destroyed after 6 years. Luckily, the RM had maintained his own records…

In the cold factual light of the foregoing, E’s comment in an email to RM, on 2 April 2013,

I think it would be best to put the whole business behind you and put your formidable talents to other uses,”

amounted to little more than a sop to one who had suffered the violent loss of his home as a consequence of a fraudulent ‘mortgage’, which was entered into under that same man’s trusted qualified “attendance” and “care”. In any event, given the established deficiencies of E’s previous attempts at ‘advising’ RM, on what logical basis could he take seriously such disingenuous counsel?

It should scarcely need stating that a professional solicitor who is ‘acting’ (and that is the key word) as qualified counsel for a client who is buying a home is duty-bound to comprehend and disclose to his client just what constitutes an equitable agreement and a lawful Deed of Mortgage.  Aside from that, there are the statutory requirements which E patently failed to bring to RM’s attention. Surely he should have been aware of the requirement that a valid contract for a mortgage has to contain the signatures of all the parties to it?:

A full five years previous to the creation of the void mortgage referenced herein, on Wednesday 12 July 1989, an Article in the Law Society’s  ‘Law Gazette’ clearly spelled out the changes to the Law of Mortgages as laid out in the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and served as a warning to all conveyancers:

First, all contracts for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land will have to be in writing; it will not be possible to have an oral contract evidenced in writing. The danger of inadvertently creating a s.40 memorandum (for example, by a solicitor’s letter) is therefore removed. Solicitors could therefore discontinue the practice of making pre-contract correspondence ‘subject to contract’. As has just been mentioned, there is no need to prevent the letter being evidence of an oral agreement and although contracts could still be created by correspondence, a solicitor has no implied authority to sign a contract on behalf of a client.” [what about DATING it, one may ask?]

Secondly, the signatures of all parties must be present; s.40 lacked this element of mutuality.

Thirdly, non-compliance with the rule will make the contract void rather than unenforceable, as under s.40 …”.

Now what is difficult to understand about that?

When E was employed as RM’s solicitor, it was his responsibility to ensure that the terms of the mortgage agreement were in accordance with the law of mortgages and that RM was not entering into an invalid contract that upon discovery and challenge would eventually result in him being unlawfully evicted. Quite how and why E failed to point out these blatant discrepancies and whether this amounts to ‘Fraud by abuse of position’ is, for now at any rate, a matter for E’s conscience, his managing partners and his insurers to determine. (18)

The facts are clear: it was E who presented RM with the documents and instruction to the effect of ‘sign on the dotted line and you will receive an advance to buy your property’. This leads us to the conclusion that RM, the purported mortgagor, was misled by fatally negligent professional advice (19) from E into gifting the bank the void Deed of Mortgage and thereby entering an iniquitous and criminal agreement.

At no point throughout his counsel over the matter did E disclose the referenced Law of Mortgages nor explain to RM how and why the Deed of Mortgage was a false instrument. Had he reasonably done so, RM would simply not have executed and delivered said deed as it would, in an instant, have been glaringly clear that

It was simply a lie put to paper.” (Tim Madden).

How and why could this occur to a client who is being instructed by a member of the SRA? After all, was he not paid for his expertise, erudition and counsel?

Indeed, why would any competent lawyer solicit, or even allow, a party to sign a receipt for money received without even asking if the statement is true? Would it have been unreasonable to have expressed it thus?

Oh before you sign that, RM, I need to ask, have you in fact received the £34,150 or whatever Principal Amount that the document claims to have already been paid to you by the B&B?”

Could he not have said,

Hey, RM, listen. Are you in fact the beneficial owner of the property? If so, then why do you want the loan? I thought that you said that you wanted the loan so that you could buy the house, yet here you are swearing under penalty of perjury that you already own it, and that such ownership is already registered? What’s going on?”

What was really going on? When we focus on Tim Madden’s amplification of the wider picture the answer becomes clear to the point of transparency:

It is about regularizing or systemically involving the equity fraud victim as particeps criminis (partner in crime) as an estoppel of the victim’s equitable rights, so that the bank can trade globally in the falsified documents…

But equity trumps law and the nominal borrower can always sue the bank in equity for the constructive and/or actual fraud that the bank commits – unless the bank can induce the nominal borrower into participating in the offence.

The purpose of the solicitor in the transaction is to induce the nominal borrower to commit a strict liability statutory offence so as to forfeit their capacity to sue the bank in equity for the bank’s fraud. This in turn allows the bank to ignore its own criminal act and to capitalize the gain from the fraud without having to set aside a contingency on its accounting books.”  (“It’s Criminal By Design“).

On the microcosmic level of the matter, other pertinent questions arise at this point, the answers to which serve to further demonstrate the failings of R’s legal advice to RM:

Did RM have good reason to trust (20) E, his purported friend and counsellor, to ensure that all necessary steps had been taken to substantiate that the agreement and ‘Deed of Mortgage’ were both valid?

Was he not entrusted with a duty of care to RM to establish the true nature of the Bank’s “OFFER OF ADVANCE” and to adequately explain the legal definitions of the key phrases in all the ‘legal’ documentation?

How did he fail to identify and bring to C’s attention the statutory failure of the Bank to counter sign a contract with RM? (21)

As established beyond doubt, it is self evident that RM trusted E to apply due diligence to that capacity in which he was employed. The demonstrated negligence amounts to a complete breakdown of the trust that was placed in him by RM. The fact he also stated in his email of 2 April 2013 that he was working for both RM and the B&B at the time (22) serves to illustrate the conflict of interest inherent to his role and, as is now only too obvious, it reveals, on a broader level, the legal profession’s duplicitous role in the mortgage fraud that afflicts over 11 million ‘mortgagors’ in the jurisdiction known as the UK.


As a direct long term consequence of E’s explicit negligence, the Bank was able to leverage moneys on the back of the valuable security/money asset (23) it had obtained possession and ownership of from RM by false representation (Fraud). For fourteen and a half years, it used the void agreement and counterfeit deed of mortgage to unjustly enrich itself through the extraction of moneys of exchange from C’s sweat equity to the total of £67,474 on a debt that, as a matter of accounting fact, did not exist. This, to any rational moral being, would appear to be nothing less than a form of indentured slavery.

Thus, the Bank unjustly enriched itself over and over at C’s expense until there came a point when, having paid them over twice the value of the illusory loan, RM, having woken up to the criminal deception, acted in equity and morality and stopped paying them. All too soon, the B&B revealed themselves to be the racketeers they are and this resulted, inevitably, in RM being unlawfully evicted and suffering real property loss.

In the light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that E’s self-professed “care” and “attendance upon” RM “in order to explain all documentation” was also a counterfeit of tragic dimensions and one which stands as a prima facie contravention of sections 2,3 and 4 the Fraud Act 2006. In any event, E’s gross professional negligence substantively breaches 6 or more of the SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY’S CORE PRINCIPLES. (24)

NOTE: This next section is taken from the final part of the Letter of Claim made against E’s PII policy.

[Extract] Wherefore, as a consequence of E’s professional negligence, the Claimant experienced the following losses, the damages for which are claimed by way of R’s professional indemnity insurance:

A. Illegal mortgage payments of £67,747 to BRADFORD AND BINGLEY PLC, from 1 September 1994 to 6 January 2009.

B. Real loss of his property of 16 years which had a market value of £110,000 in November 2010.

C. Loss of status (through Destitution) and loss of reputation caused by the excessive public display of unlawful force by the police and the bailiffs, the false arrest and imprisonment.The Accounting of Claimant’s losses:

D. The Principal of £67,747 plus three times that amount in damages: £269,896

E. The real value of the house at the time of its unlawful sale: £110,000

F. Principal Sum: £369,896

G. With interest charged at a rate of 8% p.a from date of unlawful eviction (04/11/2010) to present.

H. No. of days interest: 1030+

I. Interest accrued: £83,505.29

J. Daily interest continues to accrue at: £81.07 per day

TOTAL INDEMNIFICATION CLAIMED (Provisional) Principal + interest: FOUR HUNDRED & FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED & NINETY THREE POUNDS STERLING (£454,293.02)  (Up to and including Wednesday, 11 September 2013)”


When RM contested the lawfulness of his purported ‘agreement’ with the B&B, the institution revealed its true nature in that its actions, in accord with the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition of ‘racketeering’, were precisely those of “fraud, extortion, intimidation, and violence”.

To suggest that RM was not a victim of said racket would be the immoral response of someone so cognitively deficient that they falsely believe that some members of society are above the law and thus able to perpetuate fraud, bullying, trespass, theft and violence against others with impunity, providing some ‘Act’ of ‘Parliament’ ‘permits’ their wrongdoings when, in reality, there can be no justification for such actions.

It is from such dangerously fallacious notions that we hear expressions such as “the banks are too big to fail”, “they are above the law” and why ‘bailouts’ and ‘bail-ins’ are deemed ‘legal’. It is also at the root of why and how those morally redundant institutions continue, without exaggeration, to perpetuate their Mafia-like grip over Mankind. A grip that HMCTS have done nothing to loosen even when presented with valid and sustainable defences and/or claims by mortgagors.

As his trusted ‘legal advisor’ at the time of the creation of the void mortgage agreement secured by the false instrument known as the ‘Deed of Mortgage’, E demonstrably failed in his duty of care to RM to ensure that any and all agreements and documentation between him and the B&B were equitable and lawful and that both he and his client were thoroughly cognisant of that which RM was entering.

This failure by way of his professional negligence had dire long term consequences for RM who, under R’s instruction, entered into a deceitful racket in which his unwitting participation was procured under the pretense of a valid agreement with the Bank. It is averred that had E provided RM with competent advice, as he was duly-obliged to, RM would not have entered into any such agreement with the B&B and no losses would have been suffered.

Whilst it is common for the vast majority of purported ‘mortgagors’, in similar positions to that in which RM found himself, to capitulate (by way of forced ‘consent’) to the aggressive possession claims of the banks and their posturing lawyers, backed by the arrogant complicity of HMCTS, the fallacious dissembling of the FOS and the willful ignorance of HM Land Registry, RM, knowing the truth of the matter, refused to give way and this resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the use of further deception and violence against him.

In equity and at law, RM, the ‘mortgaged’ homeowner, owned his home outright. Therefore, under the terms and conditions of R’s professional indemnity insurance, he is entitled to recover all his losses, plus interest, and receive financial compensation for the unlawful eviction and subsequent sale of the property.

Thus, as amply demonstrated throughout this letter of claim and supported by the evidence, RM was duped by the Bank and misled by woefully remiss counselling on R’s part into unwittingly entering into a racket of immense proportions and tragic consequences.

The invalid agreement and void mortgage deed were dishonestly procured for the bank by means of the active assistance of R’s proven professional negligence, thereby serving to provide the Claimant, who was left with no legal recourse after being denied remedy from HMCTS, the Land Registry and the FOS/FSA, with an equitable cause of action.

Therefore, due to the glaring fatal omissions in his inauthentic “care” and “attendance” upon RM “in order to explain all documentation” E (and his professional indemnity insurance institution) is rendered liable for the losses sustained by RM as a consequence of R’s demonstrable negligence. It is to be noted that it is for the Respondent to ‘justify’ the negligence, failing which any claim for damages will succeed.”


Michael of Bernicia

“The Mortgage Chronicles” [2009 ~ present]

Tim Madden, “It’s Criminal by Design” [2010],2236.0.html

Si Spaniard, White Rabbit:


1 See Offence: “Obtaining by deception – mortgage fraud Culpability & Harm”: ‘False or forged documents’; ‘Offender a professional or quasi-professional.’ [FRAUD ACT 2006
see section14 (2) and schedule 2 for detailed provisions.

2 RM was induced, under E’s instruction, into breaching the equitable maxim ’Nemo dat qui non habet; No one can give who does not possess.’ Jenk. Cent. 250. by signing the false instrument and granting a charge over the property. This is further evidenced by the fact that the B&B, as purported chargee, was not under any contract to perform; they could have cancelled or withheld the advance leaving RM, the chargor, open to prosecution for trying to convey property he did not possess.



5 “CONSIDERATION, contracts. The reason which moves the contracting party to enter into the contract. 2 Bl. Com. 443. Viner defines it to be a cause or occasion meritorious, requiring a mutual recompense in deed or in law. Abr. tit. Consideration, A. A consideration of some sort or other, is so absolutely necessary to the forming a good contract, that a nudum pactum, or an agreement to do or to pay any thing on one side, without any compensation to the other, is totally void in law, and a man cannot be compelled to perform it. Dr. & Stud. d. 2, c. 24 3 Call, “E”. 439 7 Conn. 57; 1 Stew. “E”. 51 5 Mass. 301 4 John. “E”. 235; RM. Yerg. 418; Cooke, “E”. 467; 6 Halst. “E”. 174; 4 Munf. “E”. 95. But contracts under seal are valid without a consideration; or, perhaps, more properly speaking, every bond imports in itself a sufficient consideration, though none be mentioned. 11 Serg. & “E”. 107. Negotiable instruments, as bills of exchange and promissory notes, carry with them prima facie evidence of consideration. 2 Bl. Com. 445. BOUVIERS LAW DICTIONARY.

6 “ADVANCES, contracts. Said to take place when, a factor or agent pays to his principal , a sum of, money on the credit of goods belonging to the principal, which are placed, or are to be placed, in the possession of the factor or agent, in order to reimburse himself out of the proceeds of the sale. In such case the factor or agent has a lien to the amount of his claim. Cowp. “E”. 251; 2 Burr. “E”. 931; Liverm. on Ag. 38; Journ. of Law, 146.” Bouviers Law Dictionary.

7 “INCLUDE. (Lat. inclaudere, to shut in, keep within). To confine within, hold as in an inclosure,take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed.

8 “NUDUM PACTUM EST UBI NULLA SUBEST CAUSA PR)ETER CONVENTIONEM; SED UBI SUBEST CAUSA, FIT OBLIGATIO, ET PARIT ACTIONEM. A naked contract is where there is no consideration except the agreement; but, where there is a consideration, it becomes an obligation and gives a right of action.” Broom, Max. 745, 750. Black’s 4th Ed.

9 See Exhibit 4 ~ “Invoice for Provision of Legal Services”, 9 August 199410 Adj.

10. ultra vires – beyond the legal power or authority of a person or official or body etc; “an ultra vires contract”


12 Section 15a(1) provides that “A person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a money transfer for himself or another.” 

13 Fraud Act 2006: “S.3: Fraud by failing to disclose information” is defined as a case where a person fails to disclose any information to a third party when they are under a legal duty to disclose such information.

14  Definition: “WAGERS. 1. A wager is a bet a contract by which two parties or more agree that a certain sum of money, or other thing, shall be paid or delivered to one of them, on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event.”

15 “2. The law does not prohibit all wagers. 1 Browne’s Rep. 171 Poth. du Jeu, n. 4. 3. To restrain wagers within the bounds of justice the following conditions must be observed: 1. Each of the parties must have the right to dispose of the thing which is the object of the wager. 2. Each must give a perfect and full consent to the contract, 3. There must he equality between the parties. 4. There must be good faith between them. 5. The wager must not be forbidden by law. Poth. du “4. In general, it seems that a wager is legal and maybe enforced in a court of law 3 T. E. 693, if it be not, 1st, Contrary to public policy, or immoral; or if it do not in some other respect tend to the detriment of the public. 2d.” .

“A noun. A person participating in or operating a dishonest or illegal business, freq. Practising fraud, extortion, intimidation, or violence/ transf. A person who uses illegitimate means to achieve a quick result
“B verb trans, and instrans, Practice fraud, extortion, intimidation, or violence (on), esp. As part of a dishonest or illegal business.” [S.O.E.D]

17 Section 2 of the 1989 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act states that:
“(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 contracts 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. (3) The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.”

18 Fraud Act 2006 S.4:”Fraud by abuse of position” is defined as a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.”

19  And financial inducement by the Bank

20 “It is important to bear in mind whether any particular defendant is a professional person or a quasi-professional person, for the special reason that if such a participant he must necessarily be guilty of a breach of trust, and his role may be an important one in the deception of the lending institution.”

21 Cousins Law of Mortgage (Dec 2010) 3rd ed. affirms that the ‘creditor’/chargee has no interest, “Where a purported contract for the grant of a mortgage on or after September 26, 1989 fails to comply with the requirements of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, no mortgage will be created and, notwithstanding any oral agreement or deposit of title deeds, the creditor will have no interest in or rights over the debtor’s land … .” (page #610). The fact is, the Banks do not have a legal right to take the Mortgagor to court as there is no valid contract/agreement. This is substantiated by Lord Justice Rimer’s judgement in the Court of Appeal on 11 July 2012,

Section 2(1) certainly did tighten up the formalities required for contracts for the sale or other disposition of interests in land. Its effect is merciless. An appropriately signed document purporting to amount to a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land will not in fact create a valid contract unless it includes all the expressly agreed terms of the sale or other disposition. If it fails do so it will be void: see Firstpost Homes Ltd. v Johnson [1995] 1 WLR 1567, at 1571, per Peter Gibson LJ, with whose judgment in this respect Hutchison and Balcombe LJJ agreed.”

22 …when I acted on the purchase I would have been acting both for you and the Bradford & Bingley.” Email from E, 2 April 2013.

23 THE DEED OF MORTGAGE was entered as an asset on the B&B’s accounts:

4.6 Assets are defined as follows: Assets are rights or other access to future economic benefits controlled by an entity as a result of past transactions or events.”
4.23 “Liabilities are defined as follows: Liabilities are obligations of an entity to transfer economic benefits as a result of past transactions or events.”
4.24 “For there to be a liability there must be an obligation that  might result in the transfer of economic benefits.” BY INSERTING THE DISCLAIMERS, THE B&B INCURRED NO LIABILITY. From


“The Principles are at the core of everything that we do, and everything those we regulate do. If there is a clash between two or more Principles, the course of action taken will be according to the Principle that best serves the public interest. You must:
uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice,

  1. act with integrity,
  2. not allow your independence to be compromised,
  3. act in the best interests of each client,
  4. provide a proper standard of service to your clients,
  5. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services,
  6. comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner,
  7. run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles,
  8. run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity, and
  9. protect client money and assets.”
Email this to someoneShare on Facebook563Share on Google+0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn2


As of January, 2016 comments are open... cheers!