UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Pottapaug1938]

"(i)t was in fact most defiantly genuine...."

I can't help imagine some nitwit loudly yelling "I DEMAND THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS DOCUMENT AS GENUINE! YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT IT ISN'T GENUINE, SO DON'T EVEN TRY!"

[littleFred]

Tee-hee. I now have an image of three policemen sitting on a row, pretending to be ducks. Note to self: "quaking" has no "c".

Ah, yes, I had bumped into Glynis Craggs on my internet wanderings. The local rag confirms she hasn't paid her mortgage since Jan 2014. So she had been suckered into the garbage that people can stop paying their mortgage and keep their home.

Glynis's granddaughter, Amy Pringle, appealed to David Wynn Miller for assistance.

hi David my nana Glynis Craggs has got a matter of days before she could possibly be evicted from her home of 26 years . if you have any advice or info on how to stop this illegal matter, please email me on [Glynis's email]. thank you for your cooperation, Amy Pringle

I have redacted Glynis's email.

A paper today says:

Durham County Court today (Monday, March 16) rejected moves to have the bailiff’s warrant overthrown. The group is still working on ideas to resist eviction.

[Hercule Parrot]

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.

I agree. The 7 listed 'charges' are pure rhetoric, and there is no possibility of a PSD upholding them (or an court, for that matter). I watched the video, it was clear that Russ McGarry was presenting threats, aggression and violence towards the bailiffs as they carried out their duties.

I can understand if people don't want to pay their rent or mortgage any more, but it baffles me that they can think it's OK to do that and still keep the house. Ms Craggs appears to be another example following Mr Crawford into this nonsense.

Obviously they realise that every time they obstruct the eviction, the bailiffs will just come back another day with reinforcements, locksmiths and shuttering contractors. But do they also understand that the huge costs of that pantomime are ultimately recovered from them?

[PeanutGallery]

I have a feeling that a lot of the people involved in these protests don't understand what is going on. They understand a fictional version of what is going on that abrogates them of any responsibility for their actions. But they don't understand the reality.

It's important to remember that they view the entire process of getting a mortgage as being fraudulent from the outset. They think that when they signed the mortgage deed the bank tricked them by giving them money that the bank asked they should pay back. They seem to think that the bank should do this out of the goodness of it's heart, which is of course ludicrous, the bank doesn't have a heart, doesn't need a heart and exists to make profit.

They either think that the money was already theirs in a hidden private bank account (as described in Strawman theory) or that the bank was repaid the amount because of an insurance policy or that by signing the mortgage agreement they "created" the money.

If the bank makes a profit from the mortgage, outside of interest, that is clever thinking on the banks part. The person who took out the mortgage has no claim on these funds. Because they get embroiled in everything being fraud they want to declare the mortgage void from the start (void ab initio). They don't really understand what this means, you see if the mortgage was declared void ab initio, the first thing that should happen is that the bank should be refunded the money it loaned as part of the mortgage. This should then, according to Sovrun theory, be destroyed (if it was created) or credited back into the super secret bank account that we all have and they trick us out of using for some reason. In short if it was void ab initio, they would never have had the money to own the place in the first place.

Of course they don't actually stop and think this through, because that would involve thinking and not listening to a Guru who papers over these cracks with spiel, schmutter and woo. However they do believe the entire process was fraudulent, so they think that they can't be evicted from a fraudulent mortgage, even though according to them they actually commissioned the fraud and they did benefit from it. They therefore get told that the banks 'shouldn't' evict them by people with about as much legal training as a wet paper bag and believe this over those who do have actual legal training and who tell them the rather unpalatable truth of the matter.

Finally they view these protests as being something noble and heroic, they think it's helping to raise awareness and to keep them in their homes. It's not, it's forestalling the inevitable. At least not raising the awareness they want. Yes evictions are happening because people took out mortgages they couldn't pay. It was wrong to put them in that position. Eviction is hard and dealing with it must be one of the most stressful things a person can deal with in their life. But these protests only add to the stress by imagining a machine for them to rage against.

They don't understand because they don't want the truth, they can't handle it, like poor truth handlers, they want a story that absolves them of blame and gives them an evil enemy.

[Hyrion]

with about as much legal training as a wet paper bag

I don't think that's at all fair.

What do you have against wet paper bags?

I'd bet with a wet paper bag entering as many cases as the OPCA crowd have, the wet paper bag would have a better win record.

At least it would have dried out at some point.....

[grixit]

...imaging a machine for them to rage against.

Brilliant! I'm going to remember that phrase and use it sometime.

[PeanutGallery]

Damn, I misspelled "imagining".

[Burnaby49]

Damn, I misspelled "imagining".

Fixed it. But I'll leave Grixit's spelling as an alternative version.

[littleFred]

Searching for logic from SovCits is like asking rioters to think about their actions.

I don't know Tom Crawford's current litigation status. Is anything pending? The last I heard, the courts had ruled against him, and he owes £40,000. Perhaps he has given up the route of "the bank swindled me out of an endowment policy" or whatever his argument was, and has now joined the generic bandwagon of "all mortgages are fraudulent so we can use them to buy houses but not have to pay them back".

I can see why people want to believe this. They construct all kinds of elaborate theories in attempts to make their dreams come true, but they are doomed to fail.

[Normal Wisdom]

Searching for logic from SovCits is like asking rioters to think about their actions.

I don't know Tom Crawford's current litigation status. Is anything pending? The last I heard, the courts had ruled against him, and he owes £40,000. Perhaps he has given up the route of "the bank swindled me out of an endowment policy" or whatever his argument was, and has now joined the generic bandwagon of "all mortgages are fraudulent so we can use them to buy houses but not have to pay them back".

I can see why people want to believe this. They construct all kinds of elaborate theories in attempts to make their dreams come true, but they are doomed to fail.

Yes, he's got a hearing in May. In the meantime the Order of Possession has been suspended.

I don't know what his argument will be. His problem is that, as far as I know, he has never tried running with the "bank swindled me out of an endowment policy" argument which I think might have some legs.

Instead he took advice from GOODF. He got some good advice from occasional Quatloos contributor tm169 ( see page 4 of linked GOODF thread) but instead went with pre-emptively suing the bank using the Simon Spaniard "power of attorney / my mortgage is void" argument. Of course he lost be he seems to be even more entrenched into that line of thinking and added the "fraudulent documents, corrupt courts and police" themes too. If this is what he is going to pursue in May then it can only end one way. Mind you he has submitted a skeleton argument and it doesn't appear to have been thrown out yet.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Qk21inonzI

[wanglepin]

I don't know Tom Crawford's current litigation status. Is anything pending? The last I heard, the courts had ruled against him, and he owes £40,000. Perhaps he has given up the route of "the bank swindled me out of an endowment policy" or whatever his argument was,

It's important to remember that they view the entire process of getting a mortgage as being fraudulent from the outset.

That is the question I asked over page Little Fred/ PG. I couldn't find anything recent about how Tom Crawford is progressing with his own initial complaint against the banks. He, along with Taylor and dopey Mark Haining Ceylon (god, that man doesn't half believe his own importance) seem to be only concerned with “fraudulent court documents/stamps /signatures” and this now has become their first line of ‘defence’. Indeed, all the alleged bank fraud seems to have been forgotten by all parties.

[littleFred]

Re-reading that GOODF thread, I see:

We sent Bradford & Bingley and extremely long and detailed complaint that the Spaniard (white rabbit) e-mailed me and we changed it to suit our circumstances with his permission, but yesterday they simply answered by saying thank you for your complaint we will look into it.

I shudder to think what his complaint said, but it included: "Please reply to this letter within 14 days, failure to reply with substance, will mean the debt has been dissolved."

Tom was already down the rabbit-hole before he first posted on GOODF.

I hope he takes legal advice before his hearing in May; proper legal advice from someone with proper legal qualifications. I've said it before: solicitors aren't cheap, but not using a solicitor can be very expensive. A solicitor could easily advise Tom on whether he has an arguable case, and what redress he might obtain.

[vampireLOREN]

Having read as much as I can find and watched numerous videos this weekend .....especially catching the Panama hat wearing lunatic. I have come late to this and felt some concern for what I perceived to be an honest but misguided lost soul seeking salvation.
This man has known of his problems for years and it appears obvious how his fellow travellers have decided to use him. They might have actually raised considerable public support if they had left him in the background just giving radio and TV/Newspaper interviews with his family all in tears, a walking stick or a wheelchair would help too. There does also appear to be many in the movement who could be described as "Crunchy" as well as many who have Criminal records and other weird and wonderful types, Tom would have been the ideal poster boy....I could even imagine a national paper raising a subscription to pay off his loan.

But no....while trying to build an issue...they have messed up. He has moved on to be a major player, slowly digging himself (and assisting others to do the same) into a hole.
Whatever the truth is.....and something is wrong with his story he is the author of his own problems. Am looking forward to seeing it all the way through.

[tm169]

Searching for logic from SovCits is like asking rioters to think about their actions.

I don't know Tom Crawford's current litigation status. Is anything pending? The last I heard, the
Yes, he's got a hearing in May. In the meantime the Order of Possession has been suspended. He got some good advice from occasional Quatloos contributor tm169 ( see page 4 of linked GOODF thread)

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Qk21inonzI

Thanks for reminding me of that. Amazing to think I was there from the start some 2 years ago. What is sad is that he might have had a valid claim of some kind regarding the endowment issues which could have saved him from eviction.

I have a vague memory we exchanged a few PMs after that post then he went quiet only to reemerge as the goodf cause célèbre.

Whilst I was and am sympathetic to his situation I think a key point here is what he expects as the possible outcome. He wants the mortgage declared void and essentially a free house. What he might be entitled to is modest compensation and a chance for a repayment plan. I think sadly greed comes into it. Simon Spaniard seems to have fallen out of favour somewhat since he admitted to paying of his arrears (one would assume from the £20pp he charges for 1 hour seminars).

[wanglepin]

He has moved on to be a major player, slowly digging himself (and assisting others to do the same) into a hole.

He has indeed VL. I did start off with sympathy for this old duffer until I realised he was only following Mr Ebert, Guy Taylor and that self serving narcissistic Mark (Ceylon Haining) , any sympathy I still may have had went completely out of the window when I seen that the status seeking conman Roger (I am not bankrupt) Hayes jump on the bandwagon. I don't feel sorry for Tom Crawford at all, he has gone past the point of no return and to my mind the only people he does have supporting him and those that will bleed him dry. Those 'I am Tom Crawford` masks and banners must have run up a bill promoting Tom's cause Mark Ceylon Hainings web site, GetOutOfdebtFree, and it was drinks all round down the pub by all accounts after a "good days work" after the last eviction attempt.
Guy Taylor was proven to be a complete liar over on Goofers concerning his "court document forensics", but Crawford stuck to the belief that Taylor and Ebert were right.
I may sound cold but Crawford is getting what he is asking for, simply because he is now promoting freeman goofer BS off his own bat.

[Normal Wisdom]

Searching for logic from SovCits is like asking rioters to think about their actions.

I don't know Tom Crawford's current litigation status. Is anything pending? The last I heard, the
Yes, he's got a hearing in May. In the meantime the Order of Possession has been suspended. He got some good advice from occasional Quatloos contributor tm169 ( see page 4 of linked GOODF thread)

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Qk21inonzI

Thanks for reminding me of that. Amazing to think I was there from the start some 2 years ago. What is sad is that he might have had a valid claim of some kind regarding the endowment issues which could have saved him from eviction.

I have a vague memory we exchanged a few PMs after that post then he went quiet only to reemerge as the goodf cause célèbre.

Whilst I was and am sympathetic to his situation I think a key point here is what he expects as the possible outcome. He wants the mortgage declared void and essentially a free house. What he might be entitled to is modest compensation and a chance for a repayment plan. I think sadly greed comes into it. Simon Spaniard seems to have fallen out of favour somewhat since he admitted to paying of his arrears (one would assume from the £20pp he charges for 1 hour seminars).

You gave him good advice and you were realistic about what he might achieve. As you say, you were effectively "outbid" by Simon Spaniard who suggested he should at least not have to pay any more money. As somebody pointed out earlier, he was apparently already heading that way before he even contact GOODF.

One aspect of this which does rather intrigue me is that fairly late in the mortgage term, he complained to the Financial Ombudsman but was ruled out of time. I understand that there are time limits to complain about mis-selling. I'd love to know if his complaint was that the endowment policy had been "lost". I can't see why a time limit should be applied to that. He seems to have abandoned that issue completely now and as far as I can tell is going into the next court hearing purely on the basis of the void mortgage and fraudulent documentation ideas.

[wanglepin]

I haven`t watched this completely although it is only 12 min + short.

This is the documents the courts don't want you see and certainly, the Solicitors don’t want you to see.

But Tom just happens to have his?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFeSWCUpziQ

[Hercule Parrot]

This is the documents the courts don't want you see and certainly, the Solicitors don’t want you to see.

But Tom just happens to have his?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFeSWCUpziQ

The secrets start about 6 minutes in. Except there's nothing secret, or interesting, discussed. Just Tom's rambling nonsense about fraud and corruption, with one pointless slide. His presenting style is awful.

At about 10:20 he starts slagging off CAB with some bonkers story that they (CAB) are pursuing a desperate householder for £79,000 of court fees. That's obviously not true, and it's pretty despicable for TC to spread such rumours.

[rumpelstilzchen]

At about 10:20 he starts slagging off CAB with some bonkers story that they (CAB) are pursuing a desperate householder for £79,000 of court fees. That's obviously not true, and it's pretty despicable for TC to spread such rumours.

I have listened to that part a few times now and I am not sure that is what he is saying. As you quite rightly say, his presenting skills are awful, hence the confusion. I think that what he is saying is that CAB agreed to attend the hearing for possession in order to assist the householder but no one from CAB turned up at court on the day. The householder lost and (I think) what Crawford is saying is that the other side was awarded costs and they are persuing him for the money. Crawford is blaming the CAB for that. But, would the CAB agree to organise representation in a case like that? I have no idea.

[littleFred]

Oh dear. Tom is running down irrelevant rabbit-holes. The case management file has (as far as I know) no legal force or relevance. It is simply a one-line summary of activities in a case, as far as a court is concerned. It is a piece of admin, an index into the important stuff.

Tom thinks that the bank didn't pay a fee when they raised a claim. It's like getting on a bus without paying for a ticket, he says. My immediate thought: regular bus users have season tickets, so don't buy a separate ticket for each journey. I expect that institutions who frequently litigate have some kind of account with HMCTS, which they pay every month or quarter or something.

I have never seen any indication that a valid defence is "the claimant didn't pay a fee so his claim is invalid/fraudulent/whatever". As far as I can see, this is a matter between the court and the claimant, and of no interest to the defendant. If the court is content with whatever fee arrangement it has with the claimant, I can't see that the defendant can raise this as an issue.

The above is heavily qualified "as far as I know" etc because I have no personal experience. But even if I am wrong and Tom's argument succeeds, the bank could start a fresh claim, this time paying the fees in cash.