AndyPandy wrote:I think (and I'm happy to be corrected) but wouldn't that be a Civil Court issue and he's banned from starting proceedings in the Civil Courts?
He's not banned from bringing proceedings completely, but he would need to be able to persuade a judge that the case he wants to bring has some chance of success first, thereby saving the people he might accuse from spending time and money defending matters that are doomed to failure.
If Tom can find a compelling point to bring a case about then he would be able to present his case to a judge who would give permission for him to proceed. This adds an extra step along the way, but does not deny him access to justice.
Pox wrote:But he also has a restraining order banning him from visiting Fearn Chase. Could he challenge this on the basis of not being able to visit/live in his 'home'?
I'm thinking along the lines of human rights etc ?
Firstly, court orders have been taken out with moderate frequency preventing people from visiting their own home - generally in domestic or child abuse cases. This doesn't mean that it can't be overturned, but it does demonstrate that, at times, such orders can be correct even when the the affected person's ownership of a property is not in dispute.
In any event, the same problem occurs as happened in his latest appeal: the ownership of the property has been determined in court. A court ruling on Tom's right to live in his own home would not revisit whether Tom owns the house or not - that matter is decided. The only way to revisit that would be to appeal that decision separately, but after this length of time Tom would need some compelling new evidence to support it being re-opened.
With this saga heading for a climax and the way Tom is behaving, i thought it would be a good idea to remind us of the type of advice that he is being fed.
This was the first judgment and the advice that Tom was given about it, by his illustrious bankrupted and vexatious litigant counsel, Mr Ebert
I don't take sides, I read all the facts and then come to my own conclusions
I think it is always best to begin at the beginning and then chronologically progress to get the real picture.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Someone did kindly once post a timeline of events. I can't remember who it was or in which thread, I will try looking more late. Once found we could use that as a basis for matching up documents with the timeline
Coral Melissa Penn: One of the Crawford main contributors over on EFOTB ..... "Tom is not a vexatious litigant, he only has a restraining order preventing him from returning to house".
#fail
1. He is on the list of extended civil restraint orders that prevents him from taking court action in regards to the property he used to live in, without first seeking permission from a judge.
2. He does not have a restraining order preventing him from returning to his house. He has a restraining order preventing him from returning to Fearn Chase.
3. It was never his house in the first place. it was a mortgaged property that remains the property of the bank until such time the full amount of capital borrowed is repaid in full.
I don't take sides, I read all the facts and then come to my own conclusions
letissier14 wrote:3. It was never his house in the first place. it was a mortgaged property that remains the property of the bank until such time the full amount of capital borrowed is repaid in full.
I don't believe that's the case with a modern mortgage, the property belongs to the purchaser but the bank has a charge (security in Scotland) registered against it.
letissier14 wrote:3. It was never his house in the first place. it was a mortgaged property that remains the property of the bank until such time the full amount of capital borrowed is repaid in full.
I don't believe that's the case with a modern mortgage, the property belongs to the purchaser but the bank has a charge (security in Scotland) registered against it.
At least in the US, there are two different ways of holding title to a mortgaged piece of real estate. In so-called "lien theory" states, title remains in the mortgagor, but a lien in the amount of the amount loaned is placed on the title. The amount of the lien decreases as mortgage payments are made; and it is extinguished when the mortgage note is paid off. In so-called "title theory" states such as Massachusetts, the mortgagee lender takes legal title to the mortgaged premises; but the mortgagor/borrower has an "equitable title" to the extent of the amount which they themselves contributed to the purchase price. This "equity" increases as payments are made; and when the mortgage note is paid off, the mortgagee/lender releases legal title to the property.
It looks as if Scotland follows the "lien theory" practice.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
SteveUK wrote:I can't even be bothered to respond to her lol
Yeah, anyone who says "vexatious litigant is a tool to stop good men and women from bringing further claims thereby covering up the corruption" is beyond help.
letissier14 wrote:3. It was never his house in the first place. it was a mortgaged property that remains the property of the bank until such time the full amount of capital borrowed is repaid in full.
I don't believe that's the case with a modern mortgage, the property belongs to the purchaser but the bank has a charge (security in Scotland) registered against it.
I meant it is not entirely his until the mortgage has been satisfied. I had simplified it for the facebook page for his supporters
I don't take sides, I read all the facts and then come to my own conclusions
It's not going to happen I know, but the best bit of advice that can be given to Tom would be to walk away from Mr Ebert.
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.
