Personally, I think you should have kept away out of respect for people such as alisono, is it me?, UNRAM and co that lost financially as a result of your previous posts, rather than out of respect to CAG. However, you do not appear to be concerned about them.
Isn't it odd that the poster on the self realisation site has made no reference to the (no.2) hearing as detailed in post four of this thread and the details that they have posted on the self realisation site bear such little resemblance to the official record as posted above of the no.1 case.
Caggers can read about both cases via the below links
Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors  EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014)
Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh (No. 2)  EWHC 2835 (Ch)
Caggers can read into that what they will
I think I have commented enough on this subject in the below thread (and feel little need to comment further, as my view is the same as the outcome of the hearing at the property chamber)
Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed
So I will just leave it for the Judge (being the same person who you previously championed in your posts about Garguilo) to comment
Sinclair v Accord Mortgages Ltd (Rectification or Setting Aside of Documents : Grounds for setting aside)  EWLandRA 2013_0031 (21 February 2014)
2.The grounds relied on by Mr Sinclair and Mr and Mrs Overson are substantially the same. The Tribunal has received a number of similar applications by mortgagors, and the same, or substantially the same, arguments have been run in the County Court in other cases, some of which are referred to below. At the heart of these and other applications is the primary allegation that the charges are invalid as the lenders did not execute the relevant deeds. This argument originated in a document posted on the internet. It is, however, an argument wholly without merit, and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge as security for a loan.
34. It is important to emphasise that the execution of a deed is the method by which a person transfers or creates a legal estate or interest in his property. It is, by its very nature, a unilateral act. There is no requirement for the mortgagee (or, for example, for the transferee in the event of a sale of land) to sign or execute the deed. The deed is itself the actual disposition. It is to be distinguished from a contract to sell or grant a charge, which, by definition, requires the agreement of two or more parties.
38. In the present cases, the charges were properly executed as deeds by the Applicants. There is no merit whatsoever in any of the points taken by or on behalf of the Applicants to seek to impugn the validity of the two charges.
Out of respect to the caggers that listened to you last time, don't you think you should just let this one drop.
Don't you feel that you have done enough damage already ? I know the outcome of the incorrect information you previously posted had little impact upon you personally, with the exception of bruising your ego, it did however have serious financial implications for the caggers that took you seriously
I know I do
No doubt you will continue to post on this topic clutching at each and every straw, never mind how strenuous the link in an attempt to support your flawed, disproved and fanciful ideas. Thats your prerogative as it is mine to choose not to engage in pointless debate with someone that is unable to accept that they were wrong. The sheer fact so few signed your petition should serve as an indication of how little faith there is in your claims.