UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[PeanutGallery]

Indeed. In fact the good thing, possibly the only good that will come out of this, is that Tom going on about how he has 'won' when the media is accurately reporting that he has lost, will only serve to convince the average man on the street that Tom is a delusional old idiot and not the victim of fraud.

I would imagine that parading this triumph around will cost him a great deal of sympathy especially when the cold truth of reality bites.

[rumpelstilzchen]

"The suspension of the execution of the warrant for possession (of Mr Crawford's home) is therefore lifted."

This is written in plain english and not some foreign language. It can only have one meaning

I think the way Tom interprets that is the suspension is lifted because (according to Tom) the original claim is fraudulent therefore it must follow the warrant for possession is void. As there cannot be a suspension of a warrant that is not a warrant the suspension must be lifted because no suspension is possible.

[Philistine]

Tom really does believe he won today.

Tom interprets the decision: The reason leave to appeal was refused was because there is nothing to appeal. The reason there is nothing to appeal is because the claim for possession is fraudulent.
Tom and his wife are in for a terrible shock.

I think in his heart Tom knows that he lost. Look at his body language

Look at this Sue's face as he explains that he won, she isn't convinced at all

"The suspension of the execution of the warrant for possession (of Mr Crawford's home) is therefore lifted."

This is written in plain english and not some foreign language. It can only have one meaning

I think they are missing the two words stricken above. Deliberately, or through stupidity, I do not know.

[rumpelstilzchen]

stickwhistler has just posted this on Icke's:

The reason the appeal was not allowed was because the whole case/repossession was fraudulent, and therefore no order was actually made,
so no appeal was possible - because a fraudulent case is always false.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=293756
So Tom won!

[vampireLOREN]

What an illiterate fuckwit.

I'm liking the bit where he says the newspaper reporter got the story wrong because she doesn't understand legalese. Now, there's irony for you.

What do you expect? she did not sit at the feet of EBERT the MAGNIFICENT.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Over the past few years I have seen many FOTL failures that have been proclaimed a victory but this one must be the biggest one of all.Tom has well and truly fucked both himself and his wife and he believes the opposite. Tom should have asked the judge: Did I win?

[Bones]

Looks like Tom and Co are getting desperate to convince people that he won

Hi all,
This is an announcement to inform you all of an unprompted meeting on the request of many who are confused about the judges decision and also to dispel the miss information put out by mainstream media regarding our court case, so for those who have free time to come along I will explain the position that we now find ourselves in in regards to the judges decision.
The meeting will be held at 7 to 8pm tonight at the
The Elwes Arms
Oakdale Road, Carlton
Nottingham
NG4 1DH
This will be a short meeting, but for those who want to talk there will certainly be time.

Tom

I like this post too

Amanda Pike
1 hr · Edited

As you all know by now the press (Nottingham post who the rest have followed) have got the judgement wrapped around their earholes.....we have tried to explain but im not sure they get it...which to be fair can be understandable. The judgement is written in legalise but they read it in our normal every day language that we all speak. Let me explain.
To clarify legalise is a law language its an official thing solicitors judges barristers etc etc all speak it in court and in documents they are taught it in law school, you can refer to a book called the blacks law dictionary to translate it but it takes soooome understanding. But its like on paper me saying the car parked on the road is a beautiful yellow when you look up the definition of beautiful and yellow in the book they are extreamly different in their meaning , what it actually means is, its a rusty old junk heap thats green.Hope that helps....least I hope I explained it in a way that's easy to understand. Anyway we won! Whoooooppppieeeeee!x

[vampireLOREN]

This reminds me of the video of Tom saying he had an endowment mortgage, while showing statements to the camera that clearly showed he has paying B&B the interest only. The facts were plain to see, but Tom didn't see them.

I would certainly like to read today's order itself. With luck, it will be published somewhere.

I think there may be a time limit for the Order of possession which must be approaching 12 months old now. There is probably a time limit for the Warrant of Possession but assuming the original Order is still current it will be no problem getting a new warrant.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think an Order for Possession has no time limit. It is, in effect, a judgement. It stands for all of time unless successfully appealed.

Warrants are valid only for certain time limits. Obtaining a new warrant should be no problem.

Fred, could they not now approach the court and get the warrant amended into a "No Knock" Instrument or what ever its true title is?.

[NYGman]

Amanda Pike
1 hr · Edited

As you all know by now the press (Nottingham post who the rest have followed) have got the judgement wrapped around their earholes.....we have tried to explain but im not sure they get it...which to be fair can be understandable. The judgement is written in legalise but they read it in our normal every day language that we all speak. Let me explain.
To clarify legalise is a law language its an official thing solicitors judges barristers etc etc all speak it in court and in documents they are taught it in law school, you can refer to a book called the blacks law dictionary to translate it but it takes soooome understanding. But its like on paper me saying the car parked on the road is a beautiful yellow when you look up the definition of beautiful and yellow in the book they are extreamly different in their meaning , what it actually means is, its a rusty old junk heap thats green.Hope that helps....least I hope I explained it in a way that's easy to understand. Anyway we won! Whoooooppppieeeeee!x

In other words, a Plain english reading of the rulling is not possible. Legalese has the uncanny ability to mean the exact opposite of what it says, if read without legal training. We at GOOFY are trained legal experts, and know how to translate this in to english so that the layman without legal trainig can understand what it says. So the fact that the order states the suspension of the Warrent of possession has been lifted, this actually means that the court has suspended the warrent of possession and Tom has his house free and clear. Any other interpritation would require bending the legal definitions of all these legal terms.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Hi all,
This is an announcement to inform you all of an unprompted meeting on the request of many who are confused about the judges decision

Tom.....mate......the only people who are confused about the judge's decision are you and your GOOFY hangers on. To the rest of us the judge's decision is as plain as the hat on your head. You lost, Tom....you lost.

[Normal Wisdom]

Very probably stung by the allegations that they failed to understand the judgement even after it was explained 3 times by Tom and 12 times by Guy, the Nottingham Post has published excerpts of the judgement. Highlights of the excerpts:

... The reason that the Crawfords owed more at the send of the mortgage than they did at the beginning is that there is no longer an endowment policy that was supposed to repay the capital borrowed. However that came about, the Crawfords have known since at least 1999 that there was no means in place of repaying the original capital. Mr Crawford was offered the means to repay capital by way of a repayment mortageg but refused...

... Mr Crawford has raised a number of points which he says should ground an appeal. The points raised by Mr Crawford are either without foundation or legally misconceived. Factual assertions about changing the terms of the mortgage are misplaced; both sides agree that the terms of the mortgage were not changed. The legal challenges raised are misconceived...

... None of the points raised by Mr Crawford have any substance in terms of potentially defending the possession claim. None of them can be described as a point with a real prospect of success on appeal...

... The order that I make is that permission to appeal out of time is granted but permission to appeal is refused. The suspension of execution of the warrant of possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted...

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawf ... story.html

[vampireLOREN]

Looks like Tom and Co are getting desperate to convince people that he won

Hi all,
This is an announcement to inform you all of an unprompted meeting on the request of many who are confused about the judges decision and also to dispel the miss information put out by mainstream media regarding our court case, so for those who have free time to come along I will explain the position that we now find ourselves in in regards to the judges decision.
The meeting will be held at 7 to 8pm tonight at the
The Elwes Arms
Oakdale Road, Carlton
Nottingham
NG4 1DH
This will be a short meeting, but for those who want to talk there will certainly be time.

Tom

I like this post too

Amanda Pike
1 hr · Edited

As you all know by now the press (Nottingham post who the rest have followed) have got the judgement wrapped around their earholes.....we have tried to explain but im not sure they get it...which to be fair can be understandable. The judgement is written in legalise but they read it in our normal every day language that we all speak. Let me explain.
To clarify legalise is a law language its an official thing solicitors judges barristers etc etc all speak it in court and in documents they are taught it in law school, you can refer to a book called the blacks law dictionary to translate it but it takes soooome understanding. But its like on paper me saying the car parked on the road is a beautiful yellow when you look up the definition of beautiful and yellow in the book they are extreamly different in their meaning , what it actually means is, its a rusty old junk heap thats green.Hope that helps....least I hope I explained it in a way that's easy to understand. Anyway we won! Whoooooppppieeeeee!x

WTF! I posted somewhere... that Nottingham must be weird and strange because so many practitioners of Lunacy live there!. If I ever go for a visit lasting more than a day I will bring my own water with me. Where in the GOD do these people get their ideas from!. For centuries I expect people suffering from Tourettes Syndrome were just thought annoying Bastards.....so it may come to pass that in the future people will be Diagnosed with Freeman on the Land Syndrome too.

[Bones]

Really sounds like Tom won

"102. None of the points raised by Mr Crawford have any substance in terms of potentially defending the possession claim. None of them can be described as a point with a real prospect of success on appeal"

So Tom, Guy and co have all been caught lying to everyone about the outcome

[rumpelstilzchen]

Very probably stung by the allegations that they failed to understand the judgement even after it was explained 3 times by Tom and 12 times by Guy, the Nottingham Post has published excerpts of the judgement. Highlights of the excerpts:

... The reason that the Crawfords owed more at the send of the mortgage than they did at the beginning is that there is no longer an endowment policy that was supposed to repay the capital borrowed. However that came about, the Crawfords have known since at least 1999 that there was no means in place of repaying the original capital. Mr Crawford was offered the means to repay capital by way of a repayment mortageg but refused...

... Mr Crawford has raised a number of points which he says should ground an appeal. The points raised by Mr Crawford are either without foundation or legally misconceived. Factual assertions about changing the terms of the mortgage are misplaced; both sides agree that the terms of the mortgage were not changed. The legal challenges raised are misconceived...

... None of the points raised by Mr Crawford have any substance in terms of potentially defending the possession claim. None of them can be described as a point with a real prospect of success on appeal...

... The order that I make is that permission to appeal out of time is granted but permission to appeal is refused. The suspension of execution of the warrant of possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted...

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawf ... story.html

If Tom & Co believe those comments spell victory then it proves there is no point in trying to convince them otherwise.

[Hercule Parrot]

Reading the comments under that video it really does look as though people believe Tom has won, he gets to keep the house and now the "floodgates will open". I fail to understand how these people fail to understand.

It's actually quite well-researched. When people buy deeply into a delusional belief, they have to find ways to interpret reality in a way which doesn't conflict with that. If reality doesn't co-operate, then it is denied or re-framed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

What's interesting is how many GOOFy's have reached that deep state of false belief. And what they will do in the coming weeks, as the eviction takes place.

[Bones]

[Hercule Parrot]

Tom' son Craig explains

It's a load of shit and my parents get to keep the house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprXzkhT0Jw

That video really is worth watching.

Extraordinary delusional state. He sat and heard the judge say "you have lost", but he knows that really it was a victory because the judge was only pretending....?

[vampireLOREN]

Hi all,
This is an announcement to inform you all of an unprompted meeting on the request of many who are confused about the judges decision

Tom.....mate......the only people who are confused about the judge's decision are you and your GOOFY hangers on. To the rest of us the judge's decision is as plain as the hat on your head. You lost, Tom....you lost.

Hi All soon to be Bye All

[Hyrion]

The warrant has run out of time, so that's a dead duck.

It dawns on me that statement may be evidence he was deliberately stalling the Court process rather than filing a true-belief appeal.

[wanglepin]

Let me explain.
To clarify legalise is a law language its an official thing solicitors judges barristers etc etc all speak it in court and in documents they are taught it in law school, you can refer to a book called the blacks law dictionary to translate it but it takes soooome understanding. But its like on paper me saying the car parked on the road is a beautiful yellow when you look up the definition of beautiful and yellow in the book they are extreamly different in their meaning , what it actually means is, its a rusty old junk heap thats green.Hope that helps....least I hope I explained it in a way that's easy to understand. Anyway we won! Whoooooppppieeeeee!x

Maybe she ought to look up Eviction in her much quoted by freeman "Blacks Law Dictionary"'
http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/