Since UCT has never been a valid legal trust, charity, company, or unincorporated association with any recognised legal personality, there is no formal legal barrier to the current trustees simply declaring it closed and ceasing all operations under that name. The Deed’s “perpetuity” clause, Protector powers, Grand Juries, or any other internal rules have no enforceable effect in real law — they are internal theatre only.

The trustees already control the official channels (Substack, Signal Groups etc.) and have publicly removed the founder. You are in the strongest practical position to shut it down cleanly.

Best way to close it (practical, low-risk steps to protect remaining members and stop the founder exploiting the name)

The goal is maximum clarity and finality, so the founder cannot continue trading on the UCT brand, collecting memberships, or selling webinars under false pretences.

1. Immediate public announcement on the official Substack (and all other UCT channels)
   Publish a short, factual “Final Statement from the Trustees – Dissolution of Universal Community Trust”.
   

   Key points to include (draft wording available on request):

   • Confirm Michael O’Bernicia was removed as trustee on 10 February 2026 for gross misconduct.

   • State that, following internal review and the irreconcilable split, the Trustees have resolved to dissolve and wind up Universal Community Trust with immediate effect.

   • All UCT activities, memberships, subscriptions, events, “Permanent Credit Facilities”, trusts, liens, etc., are now terminated.

   • The founder has no authority to use the UCT name, logo, Treaty, Deed, or any related materials.

   • Strongly advise all members, Lien Creditors, and Beneficiaries to stop all payments to anything branded UCT and unsubscribe from all related lists.

   • Warn that any future solicitations using the UCT name are unauthorised and come from the ex-trustee personally.

   • Recommend members seek independent professional advice on any financial or legal matters.

2. This single post, pinned at the top of the Substack, creates a clear public record.

3. Shut down the infrastructure

   • Close or transfer any real-world assets: bank accounts, domain (universalcommunitytrust.org / substack), mailing lists, Signal/Telegram groups, etc.

   • If there is any actual money or property still held in the name of UCT (or any sub-trust), return it pro-rata or to individual participants where possible, or donate to a neutral charity with full transparency.

   • Disable paid subscription features and issue refunds where feasible.

4. Notify the community directly
   Send one final email to the entire mailing list, repeating the dissolution notice and directing people to the pinned Substack post. Include a clear unsubscribe link.

5. Do not engage with the founder’s “rules”
   Ignore the Deed’s procedures for new trustees, Protector role, arbitration, etc. Any attempt to follow them gives it oxygen and risks looking like you still believe it works. Treat this as the straightforward wind-up of an informal private group.

6. Protect against the founder continuing to “catch” people

   • The founder will almost certainly ignore the dissolution and keep running webinars, newsletters, and his parallel “Restoration of UCT” operation (as he has already done).

   • Your public notice creates a permanent, dated record that anyone researching UCT will find. Future victims can be shown that the official body closed and the founder is acting without authority.

   • Consider a one-off follow-up post (or pinned comment) explicitly naming his new platform/events as unrelated and advising people not to pay.

Realistic outcome

• The “official” UCT will be closed and the brand largely neutralised.

• The founder will likely continue his personal grift under the same name or a slightly rebranded one (he has already launched separate membership platforms and webinars).

• The clearest protection for everyone else is transparency: a loud, unambiguous public statement that UCT is finished. Most sensible people will see the split, the warnings, and move on.

So, we either close it or rebuild with a fresh new approach. What have we decided? Find out next in our final statement on this matter…

It would provide zero real protection for your property. It is another template in the same UCT ecosystem as the main UCT Deed we have already discussed.

While it looks formal, it is legally ineffective for the reasons below.

1. Why it fails to create a valid trust (English law requirements)

A properly constituted express trust needs three certainties: proper execution/transfer of property, and compliance with real legal formalities:

• Certainty of subject matter (the trust property): This is fatally defective. Schedule A uses broad, generic language such as “Any and all vehicles… furniture… electrical goods… monies and bank accounts… intellectual property… [and] all other property… found at the above premises or in the possession or control of any trustee(s), beneficiary, agent or assign.” Courts require identifiable, specific assets. Blanket “everything I own now or in future” clauses (especially over bank accounts, cash, or after-acquired property) are too uncertain and usually fail. You cannot simply declare “all my stuff is now in trust” and expect it to work.

• Certainty of objects (beneficiaries): Marginally better — you must name at least one non-trustee beneficiary — but still vague if not properly completed.

• Certainty of intention: Present on the face of the document (it declares a trust), but undermined by the framing.

• Constitution/transfer of property: This is a self-declaration by the grantor/trustees over their own assets. That can sometimes work, but only if the assets are clearly identified, and the trustees actually treat them as trust property going forward (separate bank accounts, changed legal title for land/vehicles, etc.). The template provides no practical guidance on how to do this properly and explicitly tells you not to transfer anything to UCT itself.

• Governing law and jurisdiction: Section 9 and Section 5 explicitly reject ordinary law in favour of “Natural Law” and “all venues and jurisdictions of the Universal Community Trust (UCT).” Real courts ignore attempts to create a parallel legal system or oust their jurisdiction.

Additional red flags that make it a sham in the eyes of any court, HMRC, bank, or creditor:

• Trustee powers include signing “without liability,” acting as attorney-in-fact, opening accounts, redirecting mail — language designed to evade personal liability.

• “Hold harmless & indemnity bond” and subordination clauses try to make the trust a shield while the grantor/trustees retain effective control.

• Explicit claims that property is “exempt from levy, charge, lien, or any other form of claim” — this has no basis in law.

• The FAQ admits the trust is meant to sit alongside the (already invalid) UCT structure while remaining “private and confidential.”

2. Would it protect your property? - Absolutely not.

In practice:

• Land Registry / property: You cannot rely on this to change legal title or protect your home from creditors, care-home fees, or bankruptcy. Mortgage lenders and the Land Registry will continue to treat you as the owner.

• Vehicles / bank accounts / cash: DVLA, banks, and HMRC ignore these trusts. Bailiffs or judgment creditors can still seize assets.

• Taxes and debts: HMRC and creditors routinely pierce or simply disregard DIY “family protection trusts” that lack substance. Using this to try to shield assets could be viewed as a fraudulent conveyance or sham, exposing you to penalties.

• Creditors / courts: Judges have repeatedly struck down or ignored similar styled trusts. They look at the reality (who controls and benefits) rather than the paperwork.

This template is part of the same ineffective UCT framework that promises to “settle outstanding liabilities” and create “permanent credit facilities” via promissory notes — all of which have no legal or banking recognition.

3. Practical risks of using it

• It could create more problems than it solves (e.g., tax complications, disputes with family, or evidence of intent to defraud creditors).

• In the current UCT trustee dispute, relying on any UCT document (including this FT) weakens your position if matters end up in real courts.

• Similar “asset protection / family protection” schemes sold in the UK have been widely criticised as mis-sold or outright scams by the FCA, solicitors’ associations, and courts. They often cost people thousands and deliver nothing.

None of our findings paints UCT in a good light. But can it be saved? We’ll explore our options next…

It does not validly create an enforceable trust. At most, it is a privately drafted template or agreement among its signatories that has no effect in courts, banks, tax authorities, or against third parties (e.g., creditors or government).

Why it fails to create a valid trust

Under English common law (the relevant framework given the deed’s style, the grantor’s “of Bernicia” reference, and 2012 UK origins), an express trust requires three certainties plus proper execution and transfer of property:

• Certainty of intention: The deed tries to show this. It is styled as a formal deed declaring trusts, powers, and restrictions over a “Trust Fund” for “Beneficiaries,” with perpetual duration and references to a “Treaty of Universal Community Trust.”

• Certainty of subject matter (the Trust Fund): This is missing or fatally vague. The definition is circular: “all such items of property, documents, deeds and instruments… granted to the Trustees so as to be in the possession of and accepted by the Trustees,” including promissory notes or bills of exchange in a “UCT Depository” / “Permanent Credit Facility.” No specific assets are identified or transferred in the deed itself.

  Without identifiable property being settled, no trust arises.

• Certainty of objects (Beneficiaries): Also missing. Beneficiaries are defined as those acknowledged in a separate “DEED OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT” annexed to a “Sovereign Community Trust” deed, executed by at least two trustees, and who take the “AFFIRMATION OF THE BENEFICIARIES.” This is self-referential and indefinite. Courts require beneficiaries to be ascertainable; vague or circular classes fail. The structure (umbrella UCT → multiple Sovereign Community Trusts → private living/family trusts) compounds the uncertainty.

• Formalities and execution: Even if fully executed, thumbprints and “Natural Law” language do not satisfy statutory deed requirements for land or valuable property. No registration as a charity, company, or LLP exists, so the “Trust” has no legal personality.

• Proper law and jurisdiction: The deed explicitly rejects ordinary law. It claims its “proper law forum” is the “jurisdiction of UNIVERSAL COMMUNITY TRUST” under “Natural Law” only, with disputes resolved by private arbitration, 13-person juries, or a 25-person “Sovereign Grand Jury” of Founding Trustees. Courts do not recognise private attempts to oust their jurisdiction or create parallel legal systems.

Additional fatal flaws:

• Trustees’ powers are heavily restricted (no self-benefit except via sub-trusts, no delegation, unanimous consent required for many acts). Yet it promotes “permanent credit facilities” via self-issued promissory notes/letters of credit—schemes with no legal basis for creating enforceable money or credit outside regulated banking.

• The document is explicitly a framework for “Sovereign Community Trusts” to escape “outstanding liabilities and obligations” and statutory authority.

What it actually is.

It is a template from the Universal Community Trust (UCT) movement founded by Michael O’Bernicia (aka Michael-John of Bernicia / Michael John Waugh) in 2012. UCT presents itself as an “umbrella trust” that creates “sovereign” micro-nations under Natural Law, with “Permanent Credit Facilities” to settle debts and to live outside government jurisdiction. It is not registered anywhere as a charity or legal entity, has faced internal disputes (e.g., the founder’s removal as trustee), and its documents are described by UK legal experts as “poorly drafted and of doubtful legal effect.”

If signed, and property were somehow transferred, it might create a private contractual arrangement among participants. But it would not be an enforceable trust in any court. It would be treated as ineffective for shielding assets, creating credit, or avoiding taxes/liabilities. Participants risk exposure to fraud claims if they rely on it against third parties (banks, HMRC, creditors).

Oh. A trust with no res is not a trust at all. What about the UCT Family Trust? Will that protect my property? Find out tomorrow…

This document has no effect in either domestic UK law or international law. It does not create, establish, or prove any separate jurisdiction for UCT.

Here is why, broken down clearly:

1. What the document actually does

• It claims that because the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office received a copy of the Treaty of Universal Community Trust in 2012 and did not object within six months, this created a tacit (implied) agreement (a “Memorandum of Understanding”) recognising UCT’s sovereignty, independence, “Natural Law jurisdiction,” and superiority over UK law.

• It unilaterally declares that HM Government recognises UCT as a “separate and superior jurisdiction” for civil and criminal matters, agrees to use UCT arbitral tribunals/Grand Juries, and must cooperate on returning “ancestral lands.”

• It cites various international instruments (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, “Law of Nations,” etc.) to give it a veneer of legitimacy.

• Crucially, the document itself admits on page 5: “Whilst this document is not legally enforceable, it may be used as evidence that the independence, sovereignty and jurisdiction of UCT has been implicitly recognised.”

2. Why this has no legal effect

• Silence is not consent under international or domestic law. International law does not treat a government’s failure to respond to an unsolicited letter from a private group as acceptance of a treaty or recognition of sovereignty. Treaties and state recognition require explicit consent by competent state authorities. Unilateral declarations by non-state actors (even if styled as a “Treaty”) bind no one. Courts and governments worldwide reject “tacit acquiescence” arguments of this type.

• UCT is not a state or recognised indigenous nation. The UK government has never recognised UCT as a sovereign entity, independent jurisdiction, or anything other than a private group. There is no record of any official response, acknowledgement, or acceptance from the Foreign Office, Buckingham Palace, or any UK authority. The 2013 letter was simply ignored — which is the normal governmental response to such documents.

• The cited international law does not apply. The Vienna Convention governs treaties between states. The UNDRIP is a non-binding declaration and does not create new sovereign entities or override domestic law. UCT is not an “indigenous people” or state under any recognised definition.

• UK domestic law position (unchanged since 2013). UCT has never been registered as a charity, company, or legal entity with any legal personality. Courts treat its documents (including this MoU) as having “doubtful legal effect” at best. No UK court has ever recognised UCT jurisdiction.

3. Practical reality in 2026

• UCT remains exactly what it was in 2013: a private contractual arrangement among its participants with no recognition by any government, court, bank, police force, or international body.

• This MoU has been circulating in UCT materials for over 13 years and has achieved nothing in terms of real-world sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Okay, so the treaty and MoU may be dodgy, but at least we have trust. Or do we? Let’s find out next…

It claims to have been ratified on 21 June 2012 by 25 “independent sovereign nations of indigenous peoples” (in reality, privately created micro-nations / Sovereign Community Trusts set up by UCT participants themselves). It asserts supreme jurisdiction, repudiation of existing governments, abolition of usury, nullification of debts, and various other sweeping aims.

Why it is not valid

1. It is not a treaty in the legal sense
   Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (the international rulebook for treaties), a treaty must be an agreement between states (or recognised international organisations with treaty-making capacity). Private individuals, trusts, or self-declared “indigenous nations” created by a private group have no capacity to conclude binding treaties. The 25 “nations” mentioned are not recognised states or peoples under international law — they are internal UCT constructs.

2. Ratification and “tacit recognition” claims are legally meaningless
   The treaty and other UCT materials rely on the same argument we saw in the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding: a copy was sent to the UK Foreign Office, six months passed without objection, therefore the UK (and later the UN) implicitly recognised UCT’s sovereignty.

   • Silence or non-response by a government does not equal consent or recognition.

   • The UK government has never acknowledged, recognised, or responded to UCT in any official capacity. No court, regulator, or international body has ever treated this as a valid treaty.

3. No recognition anywhere
   There is no record of any state, the UN, or any court recognising UCT or its Treaty as a sovereign entity or binding instrument. UCT’s own materials (including the MoU) admit the documents are “not legally enforceable” while hoping they can be used as “evidence” of recognition — which they cannot.

Practical reality

This Treaty is the foundational document for the entire UCT framework (the main Trust Deed, Private Living Family Trusts, Permanent Credit Facilities, etc.). Because the Treaty itself is invalid, everything built on it inherits the same fatal defects.

It has exactly the same status as the other UCT documents we have examined: a private contractual agreement among willing participants that binds no one outside the group and is ignored by courts, police, banks, HMRC, Land Registry, etc.

Does the UCT Memorandum of Understanding establish jurisdiction under the Treaty of UCT? We’ll find that out next…

It is not a classic Ponzi scheme promising investment returns, nor is it necessarily a criminal enterprise in the strictest legal sense (no major regulatory actions appear to have been taken against it). However, it fits the pattern of many ideological movements: it sells false hope and ineffective “solutions” to real problems (debt, taxes, government overreach, asset protection) using pseudolaw that has zero enforceable effect in any court, bank, or government agency.

How the money-making works

From the documents, websites, Substack, newsletters, and public records:

• Core revenue streams:

  • £20 annual “UCT community membership” subscription (promoted heavily on the official site and tied to webinars, content access, and “benefits”).

  • Paid webinars and events (e.g., the “Restoration of UCT” series, “All Things UCT” presentations) — £20 per ticket for non-members, with free entry marketed as a perk for paid-up members.

  • “Tip in the jar” solicitations in newsletters.

  • Upsells to the founder’s separate media platform (A-FP Premium Classics) bundled with UCT membership.

• Who is (or was) making the money?

  • Primarily, Michael O’Bernicia (aka Michael John Waugh / Michael-John of Bernicia), the founder. He controls or has controlled the main monetisation channels:

    • Webinars and events are hosted/run through his company A-FP Publishing / AFP Media Group Limited (TicketTailor links under “afp”).

    • His media output (documentaries like The Great British Mortgage Swindle, films, podcasts, books) is cross-promoted with UCT content.

    • Newsletters and “restoration” appeals directly solicit funds from the community while positioning him as the indispensable leader, Protector.

  • The current trustees now appear to control the official Substack and some community channels. They have publicly distanced themselves from the founder’s paid events and advised people to seek refunds, which suggests they are trying to separate the “official” UCT brand from his personal monetisation. However, the membership/subscription model predates the split, and any ongoing community fees likely still generate some revenue for whoever administers the accounts.

The internal feud (financial governance concerns cited in the trustees’ removal of the founder, plus his counter-accusations) revolves heavily around control of these funds, the “UCT Treasury,” liens, and the non-existent “UCT Bank.”

Why it qualifies as a scam in practice

• The product doesn’t work: As we’ve established across every document (Trust Deed, PLFT, Treaty, MoU), none of it creates valid trusts, jurisdictions, credit facilities, debt nullification, or asset protection.

• It exploits genuine grievances: People worried about debt, mortgages, taxes, or overreach are drawn in with promises of “sovereignty” and “permanent credit” — then funnelled into paid memberships and events.

• Recurring pattern: The founder has a long history of anti-system media and “remedies” (mortgage challenges, commercial liens, etc.), all of which follow the same pseudolegal template that fails in real life.

That said, not everyone involved is scamming. Many members and even some trustees appear to be sincere believers in the Natural Law / anarchist vision. The harm lies more in wasted money and time, false security, and potential legal risks (e.g., ignoring real debts or court orders because of UCT “remedies”).

Tomorrow, we’ll see if the Treaty really is valid…

Background

On 1 October 2023, an email was circulated to subscribers titled “The Kidnapping of My Daughter by Newcastle Social Services.” In that message, Mr Waugh described a situation involving his daughter and local authority intervention, and requested financial support.

A subsequent email, sent approximately three days later, reiterated the request and stated that £25,000 was required to engage a “top KC” (King’s Counsel) to pursue legal action.

Fundraising Claims

The appeal reportedly raised in excess of £40,000.

However, concerns have since been raised by contributors and observers regarding how these funds were used.

In particular:

• Waugh claimed that the funds were intended to secure representation from a leading KC.

• At present, no verifiable evidence has been provided to demonstrate that such legal representation was formally instructed.

• Questions have also been raised regarding whether any barrister was engaged at all using these funds.

Additionally, it has been alleged that advice may have been sought from an individual described as a disbarred barrister. We have already reported this matter to the Bar Council.

So, where’s the money gone?

Here, he states…

… with the demonstrable aim of removing me from my position and causing me significant losses, whilst procuring gains for yourselves…

And there you have it, in black and white, in his own words, “causing me significant losses.”

What losses can he be talking about?

The trustees have asked to see the accounts. He can’t, or won’t, produce them. And, yet here he states he’s RESPONSIBLE for them:

Well, the good news is he’s also LIABLE for its LOSSES!

What you should do if you donated

1. Ask for your money back
   Contact Waugh directly and demand a full refund with proof of how the funds were spent.

2. Gather evidence
   Keep copies of the original emails, payment records, and any responses you receive.

3. Report it to the police
   Fraud is a criminal offence. Report it online at www.police.uk or call 101. Provide the emails, donation details, and reference the specific appeal titled “The Kidnapping of My Daughter by Newcastle Social Services” (1 October 2023).

So, is UCT just a personal money-making scheme? We’ll find out next…

No, he cannot validly remove the four trustees in the way described in the 22 April 2026 notice — even under the Deed’s own internal rules.

And yes, he can be (and already has been) removed as a trustee by the current trustees. Here is the clear breakdown based on the Universal Community Trust Deed and the notice itself.

1. Under the Deed’s own terms (internal logic only). The Deed is very specific about roles and removal/expulsion:

• Grantor-Trustee becoming Protector: Section 8(a) allows the original Grantor-Trustee (Michael O’Bernicia / Michael John Waugh) to resign his trusteeship and take the role of Protector. His notice does this. That step is arguably permitted by the document if he were still a trustee.

• Protector’s power to expel/remove trustees: Section 8(c) is crystal clear and restrictive: “Only in such circumstances when a Sovereign Community Trust, a Trustee or a Beneficiary is declared by a jury to be in serious breach of the Deed, the Treaty or both, without possibility of alternative equitable recourse, shall the Protector declare that a party must be expelled…”His notice contains no jury declaration, no impartial tribunal, no Grand Jury of Founding Trustees (as required by s9(d) for serious breaches), and no evidence that the process in s8(c) was followed. He simply declares unilateral removal “forthwith by notice.” That does not comply with the Deed.

• Trustees’ powers to act against the Grantor: Section 4(c)(iii) says trustees have “discretionary or protective powers” only in the event of breach/fraud and only with unanimous agreement of the trustees. He argues your side lacked unanimity (citing resignations). The current trustees’ public statement (March 2026) says they acted “in accordance with the Trust’s governing document and with appropriate advice” after serious governance and financial concerns. Both sides are accusing the other of skipping the Deed’s procedural hurdles.

Current real situation (public record)

The trustees publicly removed him as trustee on 10th February 2026 for “serious governance concerns relating to financial matters and the proper administration of the Trust.” They have issued a formal statement denying all conspiracy, fraud, and theft allegations and say they will deal only through proper channels.

Next up, we’re going to air our concerns regarding his dubious fundraising methods

Dear Members, Lien Creditors, Beneficiaries and Community,

Over the past few weeks, Michael John Waugh (also known as Michael O’Bernicia) has sent a number of lengthy emails and announcements making various claims about the Trust, the trustees, and his own position. We will not respond to those communications point by point.

Instead, the Trustees have prepared a short, logical series of clear statements that address the key issues in an orderly way.

Each post will build on the previous one, giving you the full picture without unnecessary drama or debate.

Here is what to expect over the coming days:

• Starting tomorrow, we will publish 3 focused statements each day at 8:00 am, 12:00 pm and 4:00 pm, on the topics we consider most important.

• Each post will stand alone but will also lead naturally into the next.

• The series will culminate on Saturday, 3rd May, with our Final Statement on the matter at 4:00 pm

We strongly recommend you follow this Substack (and turn on notifications) so you receive each update as it is published.

This structured approach is designed to give every member of the community the facts in the clearest possible way, bring finality to the current situation, and prevent any further confusion or misleading claims.

Thank you for your patience and continued support.

The Trustees of Universal Community Trust