UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[littleFred]

Indeed, the police have no authority to act against the courts. On the contrary, once the police are satisfied that the enforcement officer is genuine, their duty is clear from Courts Act 2003 sch 7 para 5:

It is the duty of every constable, at the request of—

(a)an enforcement officer, or

(b)a person acting under the officer’s authority,

to assist the officer or that person in the execution of a writ or warrant.

[PeanutGallery]

I do wonder why the GOOFs have never highlighted that legislation...

[PeanutGallery]

I've also noticed a number of posts from people claiming to be members of Anonymous in support of Tom Crawford and the general Sovrun movement. A part of me finds that somewhat offensive. Largely because I was involved in Anonymous when it started and was campaigning and protesting Scientology. This was back in the day of Project Chanology and my actions were strictly confined to lawful actions and to exercise my right to express my opinion that Scientology was (and is) a dangerous cult.

To me Anonymous, and being a member of Anonymous was about standing up to bullshit that was being peddled that was harmful. I still believe in that. This is why I am opposed to GOODF and other fraudsters. This is also why I find it upsetting that some members of Anonymous, and due to how Anonymous is structured they are as much a member as I am, are on the side of what is, in many ways, another cult and certainly a dangerous belief system.

These anon's probably don't even know why they wear that mask or think it has some meaning relating to protesting (it doesn't, it was simply that a disproportionate number of individuals involved in Chanology happened to have that mask to hand and we were cautious about making ourselves identifiable to Scientology because of their fair game policy).

[Hercule Parrot]

I don't think many of the old Anons have transferred their support to the GOOFys. The Guy Fawkes mask and the whole "expect us" riff has become an emblem of principled, firm resistance, the silent majority who will only allow themselves to be pushed so far.

The 'brand' is now being adopted by others who imagine they are behaving in that way, and dream of the crowd scene in V for Vendetta when they overwhelm the oppressive regime.

Kudos for your part in Chanology. I was a fringe Anon, always wished I had done more.

[PeanutGallery]

Over on GOODF it's been noted by "BornFreeLiveFree" that Tom said he had an appeal hearing on the 21st of February, of course now that date has passed there seems to be no mention of what happened or what the result of the appeal was.

BornFreeLiveFree is naturally concerned about this and asking what happened. Tom so far has not responded. Do any Quatloosians have any knowledge about what happened at this hearing? It seems strange that Tom, who's not exactly backwards at coming forward (as my old Nan would say) has clammed up, either he'd be talking about how the hearing was run by a corrupt judge (if he lost) or that justice had prevailed (if he won).

[ArthurWankspittle]

My guess would be he got the date wrong (21st was a Saturday) and it hasn't happened yet or, if it was supposed to have happened by now, it has been postponed.

[wanglepin]

I'd be interested to know how far this "investigation" is coming along, where Tom Crawford informed the world that;

The crime report is now being investigated by the complex case review at the Metropolitan Police and they have said that they have never had to investigate fraud in the county court before (due to the fact its a civil matter) so we are encouraged that we have all managed to open a door which has been firmly shut before now.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... PFx7zSsV8E

[Normal Wisdom]

I haven't seen anything further about the police investigation into their allegations of "fraud" but Tom has given a further update on his court case which I believe is an appeal against the Order of Possession. It appears that the current Warrant of Possession has been suspended pending the hearing.

After entering our Skeleton argument into Court last Friday (20th February) we have been waiting for confirmation from the court of what to expect next . We now have a hearing in May smile emoticon with HHJ Godsmark details of which will follow in the near future

I'd love to see the skeleton argument.

[littleFred]

Tom Crawford has been acting "with the help of Michael O'Deira". This individual, once known as Michael of Elmet, and not to be confused with MoD's "brother and close associate" Michael O'Bernicia, has the distinction of having been evicted from two houses almost exactly a year apart (4-Nov-2010 and 7-Nov-2011). The same police were involved, and the same judge. I don't know if it was the same bank.

Michael O'Deira tells us the history of the first eviction in painful detail. In a nutshell, he took out a mortgage in 1994 to buy a house in Exeter Road, Forest Fields, Nottingham. In January 2009 he concluded that the bank (Bradford and Bingley) hadn't actually lent him any money, so he stopped paying the mortgage. Paperwork went back and forth, but the bank declined his promissory note and finally chucked him out in November 2010.

He doesn't give the history of the second eviction, but says it was a friend's house (Sue).

This Michael is no stranger to FMOTL theories. Indeed, he once had "FMOTL 01" plates on his car. Sorry, I mean his private chariot. The authorities removed that chariot in 2009. His next ("NAMASTE") survived from April to September 2011.

Michael's favourite word: genocide. His favourite guru: Mark Passio (qv). Dislikes: propagandists of statism such as Karl Lenz, Brian Gerrish, Winston Leachman and Dean Clifford.

[Hercule Parrot]

After entering our Skeleton argument into Court last Friday (20th February) we have been waiting for confirmation from the court of what to expect next . We now have a hearing in May smile emoticon with HHJ Godsmark details of which will follow in the near future.

If that's true, then I can see why the "smile emoticon" is there. Surely TC hasn't managed to engineer a 3 month postponement by raising some bogus delaying tactic?

[ArthurWankspittle]

After entering our Skeleton argument into Court last Friday (20th February) we have been waiting for confirmation from the court of what to expect next . We now have a hearing in May smile emoticon with HHJ Godsmark details of which will follow in the near future.

If that's true, then I can see why the "smile emoticon" is there. Surely TC hasn't managed to engineer a 3 month postponement by raising some bogus delaying tactic?

No I can believe a 3 month delay if he has raised some vaguely possible genuine point. This is a county court issue IIRC and they have lots of work and better things to do than throw people out of the homes they are buying. Three-ish months delay I would say is normal scheduling.

[Normal Wisdom]

After entering our Skeleton argument into Court last Friday (20th February) we have been waiting for confirmation from the court of what to expect next . We now have a hearing in May smile emoticon with HHJ Godsmark details of which will follow in the near future.

If that's true, then I can see why the "smile emoticon" is there. Surely TC hasn't managed to engineer a 3 month postponement by raising some bogus delaying tactic?

No I can believe a 3 month delay if he has raised some vaguely possible genuine point. This is a county court issue IIRC and they have lots of work and better things to do than throw people out of the homes they are buying. Three-ish months delay I would say is normal scheduling.

I think Tom has been through this process before. Towards the end of his mortgage period and after his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman had failed, Tom initiated a prosecution against the loan company to head off their claim for repayment of the capital sum. I imagine that, as on this occasion, he would have had to submit a skeleton argument to outline the case that he intended to make in court. I don't know the nature of his claim but we do know that the loan company sought a pre-trial hearing on whether the claim was worthy of prosecution. The case was reviewed by the judge in his chambers and was dismissed as "without merit" as was the subsequent attempt to take the case to the High Court.

What are the odds on a similar result this time? I hope the case does make it to court as it's the best chance we have of finding out the real facts of the story and not the partial and misunderstood version that Tom chooses to share.

[PeanutGallery]

If it didn't work the first time, it's bound to work the second time. I mean not like common law courts make use of precedent or anything like that.

In all honesty I don't see this making it to court, at least not to a hearing (and if it does go to a hearing it will be even more disastrous and financially devastating for Tom). What I can see is that Tom may find himself on the wrong end of a civil restraint order which might prevent him from making any further futile attempts to steal back his home. Of course when this fails the question that remains will be, will the bailiffs attempt to give him notice, or will they just proceed to a no-knock warrant.

[wanglepin]

When will these goofers ever accept the facts? Down at the local police station this officer very politely and patiently explains that they will assist the bailiffs if the court asks them to.
Crawford's reply to this is,

the courts and the bailiff are getting the police into serious serious trouble

Crawford then goes on to lecture the officer on what can and "cannot be enforced"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-UIJ9aHa5I

[littleFred]

That video made me feel sad for Tom. He really has lost the plot.

The background is: Tom and Ceylon joined a group of 50 to prevent an eviction in Durham. Three police parked a long way off. The bailiffs came, chatted with the police, and departed. Tom didn't want to waste his prepared speech, so they troop off to the police station to report a crime. Not, I assume, a crime committed on that day but when the mortgage wasn't paid or the bank went to the court or something. The householders didn't join them at the police station.

Tom lectures the police sergeant:

I've seen the documents and I know they're not real documents. ... We're now having [police] officers arrested for assisting bailiffs. Seven in Manchester, two in Hereford, it's going on everywhere, because they're acting on these documents.

I shudder to think what really happened in Manchester and Hereford. I doubt the police are quacking in their boots.

The other primary role [for the police] is not to take sides and not to assist bailiffs. Even if the court says you are allowed to assist the bailiffs, you are not allowed to use [any] force whatever.

I'm sure the sergeant appreciated Tom's long lecture on what the police were and were not allowed to do. He listened patiently. I suspect he will listen harder to people actually know what they are talking about.

Tom, Tom, Tom, ... you are valiantly spreading the gospel of Mr Ebert and the two Michaels (who all lost houses) and Ceylon. If you are going to lecture police about the law, you lose any credibility when you get it wrong. The sergeant was being gentle with you, but the police certainly do have the power to arrest and remove people who obstruct bailiffs from performing court-ordered duties. If necessary, they can use force to do this. Your belief that they can't is sadly (for you) mistaken.

The sergeant may make a quick phone call to his colleagues in Nottingham: "Have you had dealings with a Mr Tom Crawford?" Gaining a reputation as a rabble-rouser won't do Tom any favours.

The place to fight this, if a fight is possible, is in the courts. Trying to persuade the police not to do their duty just ain't going to work.

[Normal Wisdom]

I don't know about the Hereford case although it surely must relate to the removal of Guy Taylor from Bodenham Manor. The Manchester case relates to Russ McGarry who claims that 7 police officers have been "found guilty" by the "Professional Standers (sic) of Investigation and Civil Litigation Office" and are now subject to private prosecutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR6cYkdXFSE&spfreload=10

I have been trying to find out whether this refers to a proper investigation by the police or it's just some made up FoTLer nonsense but as usual I haven't been able to get a straight answer. Fortunately Greater Manchester Police publish the results of all complaints against them on line so I will be able to check. Unfortunately, they only update the information quarterly and the next period isn't due to be published until after the end of March.

It appears Tom and co. are taking their usual nonsense about fraudulent court documents and police involvement in civil matters and moving on from simply trying to convince the police and bailiffs on the ground to raising this as a formal complaint. No doubt it won't ultimately be any more successful but it may muddy the waters still further especially if as at Portsmouth they can get a gullible and ill-informed desk sergeant to take them seriously.

The attempted eviction at Durham is actually in Willington, home of Paula J Campbell and it's probably no coincidence. This is the second attempt at evicting Glynis Craggs and her partner. Just like Tom Crawford, she tells a rather good sob story about how she is being threatened with eviction simply for "asking a question".

This sounds incredibly vindictive by Redstone Mortgages. However, it transpires that the question she asked was about power of attorney in her mortgage agreement. This still sounds like an overreaction unless you also know that this question is stage one of the process described by Simon Spaniard / White Rabbit Trust in determining that your mortgage is void. Ms Craggs did not get the response that she required from Redstones and therefore notified them that she was formally in dispute with them. This is stage two of the process and according to Simon has the happy side effect that you don't have to make any more mortgage payments until the dispute is resolved. Ms Craggs admits that she stopped making payments after January 2014 and Redstones obtained an Order of Possession in July 2014.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/1 ... s#comments

[wanglepin]

I noticed that Tom Crawford never once has ever mentioned anywhere (to my knowledge) the fraud of the banks or Building Society who by all accounts have swindled him and committed fraud against him. As far as I understand it this is Tom Crawford’s gripe. Why has he not been reporting this crime of bank fraud instead of bailiff and courts fraud? This alledged fraud seems to have been bypassed by both Crawford and the idiot Ceylon and turned into the obsession with the so called fraudulent court document-gate.
I have to smile when the police officer told someone not to start lying about police numbers present at this " non eviction".

I doubt there are that many police officers in the whole of Durham

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-UIJ9aHa5I

[PeanutGallery]

As I recall from watching Russ McGarry's eviction I was very surprised that he and his daughters didn't find themselves charged with assault. As to the claim that seven officers have been "found guilty" this is questionable. Firstly, no Professional Standards department within the police would use the term "Guilty", it's highly pejorative and if the standards led to criminal charges could lead to a mistrial. They would say that the conduct was improper or that it fell below the acceptable standards. I would very much doubt that the police are quacking (sorry LittleFred for highlighting that error but I can't not make this pun) in their boots as the Freemen seem unable to get all their ducks in a row.

Secondly while the GMP (like all Police Forces) have a professional standards department, they don't seem to have a civil litigation office. They have a civil litigation unit, but this unit is a part of the criminal justice and diversity command section of the force and not the professional standards (likely because civil claims could be raised to the GMP by both internal and external matters (source).

They also wouldn't say that they were liable for Private Prosecutions. Simply because everyone, everywhere is liable to be privately prosecuted for anything that they either have or haven't done. Saying that they are liable to be privately prosecuted is pretty much meaningless and no more than Sovrun puffery designed to sound big and important but actually means nothing. All you need to do to start a Private Prosecution is to lay the charges at the magistrates court, you don't even need to present any evidence to the magistrate, you just need to set out the allegation, showing what law was broken and describing the offence and *bam* you got yourself a private prosecution (source).

In the Durham matter, it seems to me that the claim "I'm being evicted for asking a question" is somewhat disingenuous. While she did ask a question, she also stopped paying the mortgage. I would imagine that mortgage companies get asked all sorts of daft questions all the time. I wouldn't think it's asking the question that convinced the Judge to make her homeless (which is something a Judge would take very very seriously before doing) and it was more the not paying the mortgage since January that has put her in this position.

[Arthur Rubin]

"Private Prosecution" could be a distortion of the common law principle that an government employee cannot be sued as an individual for actions taken which actually were within the scope of employment.

One of the reasons I dropped out of law school is that I cannot remember the name of the criteria in US law.

[Normal Wisdom]

It seems extremely unlikely that the police attending the eviction in Manchester were found "guilty" by any official body as the list of the alleged offences (see below) sound like the usual FOTLer ramblings. Descending mob-handed on the local police station to raise these complaints seems like a new tactic. As for the private prosecutions, I believe Guy Taylor tried to prosecute the bailiffs who removed him from Bodenham Manor but that was tossed out by the CPS.

The 7 counts are as follows:

1-Police were not impartial.

2-Officers did nothing when bailiffs assaulted the entire family.

3-Officers ignored the families documentation and assisted the bailiffs in evicting the family.

4-Officers took Russ away from his address which allowed the bailiffs to take the property when it was his lawful right to refuse them.

5-Officers failed to take a complaint of assault on Russ and his daughters

6-Officers ignored being informed that one of Russ's daughters was pregnant.

7-The sergeant inspector on the day claimed the document from the royal courts of justice that Russ had, which stated clearly that the eviction should not take place as all Russ's avenues were not exhausted, was fraudulent document, when in reality he never even looked at it, he was sat in his office 5 miles away, he refused to even look into either it by finding out for definite , he just used it as an excuse to assist the bailiffs. it was in fact most defiantly genuine. so the 7th point was that the sergeant claimed the documents were incorrect, when they were not.