UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[fat frank]

I know a freeman, who claims they paid off the mortgage with a A4v, don't pay c tax, and the council don't bother them, turns out there son works 2 jobs to pay there bills, and rents out his own house,

the joys of being free on the system

[ArthurWankspittle]

by SalliNae » Fri May 15, 2015 12:56 am
If you prefer to believe the mainstream media and doubt the reporting of Guy and Tom or their abilities to comprehend the judgment then that is entirely up to you.

Well thank you Party Commissar SalliNae, I'll take the "doubt the reporting of Guy and Tom or their abilities to comprehend the judgment" for $500.

[wanglepin]

And further to the exchange between that fence sitting platinum starred moderating goofer and wooden ed;
you may recall, he asked;
so does this mean Tom gets to keep his home?
had the reply;

SalliNae wrote:Why on earth would you ask a question like that?. I repeat. If they are happy, so am I.

by Wooden head » Fri May 15, 2015 10:03 am

I have asked simply because of the confusion that has arose from conflicting statements. jesus! I haven't asked you for your DNA code.
So you're happy with Tom's outcome today. That is fair enough, thank you.
p.s.

SalliNae wrote:This is fair warning. ......"Any members with lots of questions,

SalliNae would you like to go to the link provided and have q quick listen for yourself. I have made the actual and relevant quote available for you to read in case you do not have the time.
0:11:48 onwards

Go in the site and ask questions in the forum whether it's irrelevant or not. It might have been asked a thousand times before but we don't mind replying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u3yu20KPAs

As you can imagine our dear,dear but furious aunt Salli wasn't too pleased about having a few words of Ceylon's shoved down her neck, came back with this little out burst

by SalliNae » Fri May 15, 2015 11:02 am

Please stop disrupting threads Woodenhead. The fair warning I made is specifically posted on the WeRe threads which are garnering a lot of intention and are affecting members who genuinely want to follow WeRe threads without clutter.

All your questions, however suspect, have been answered to the best of members ability within the remit of the information they have at their disposal.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VXhZjTF98E
She knows damn well that Mr and Mrs Tom Crawford will now be out of their home soon but in typical goofer arse licking fashion,SalliNae has gone into a serious bout of denial and side stepped the question.
I just loathe these people.

[Bones]

by SalliNae » Fri May 15, 2015 12:56 am
If you prefer to believe the mainstream media and doubt the reporting of Guy and Tom or their abilities to comprehend the judgment then that is entirely up to you.

Well thank you Party Commissar SalliNae, I'll take the "doubt the reporting of Guy and Tom or their abilities to comprehend the judgment" for $500.

After all, Guy is so well known for his accurate reporting

Who is this Sally. She said she is happy if Tom is happy. So she is happy that Tom has misunderstood the judge and will now loose his home.

With friends like Sally who needs enemies.

All seems very quiet on the victory celebrations today. Is it starting to hit home that they actually lost. If it was me and I won, after such a drawn out battle, I would be posting everywhere about it.

I think it also speaks volumes that Tom & co have not posted the decision to support the claim he won.

Not even a video of ceylon sitting in a car telling us Tom won, personally I am disappointed.

No UK column news story reporting the victory

No Guy Taylor claims on youtube

Hardly anything of substance on any site.

I think Tom may have at last come to his senses but it is too little to late, unless his son sells that 2011 convertible Audi he is driving around in to help his Dad pay the mortgage.

[wanglepin]

No UK column news story reporting the victory

No Guy Taylor claims on youtube

Hardly anything of substance on any site.

Goofer salli said she is happy if Guy Taylor and tom are happy. (I Know )
Guy Taylor is usually slow off the mark with a rebuttal his version of a court verdict, so U.K.Column and Brian Gerrish will have to wait for their star attraction to get his version of court proceeding together.Should be very interesting , some fun to had had there I would say.

[guilty]

GOOFers site:

TO PEOPLE FOLLOWING THE EVICTION....etc etc

From Craig.

[wanglepin]

Deary me

by bertiebert » Fri May 15, 2015 2:30 pm

TO PEOPLE FOLLOWING THE EVICTION.
The reporters are talking bullshit. Would anyone buy the paper if the fight was over? What sells papers? The struggle.. Right? Not it being over.. There's no sorry to tell if the story ends...
I sent this to ellie from the evening post who WRONGLY reported bullshit. She had our support.. Now I'm not so sure... And her intelligence worries me now. Maybe she shouldn't cover the story any more.
My text:
Hi ellie, it's Craig. Toms son... Excuse the essay.. But You guys are showing just parts of the judgement that make no sense.
You released a bit that says there was no endowment policy in place... YET. If you were bothered enough to read through it all and pay attention..
You'll see the judge mention that BOTH PARTIES clearly acknowledge that the policy NEVER changed from an endowment policy.
You're reading what b and b said...
You're in no way qualified to decipher legalese.. Yet you publish your rubbish.
I suggest you look into it and fix this. Because the other reporters are going by what you're saying. Which.. Excuse my french.. Is bullshit!!
We've been nothing but welcoming to you and you've seen how the supporters can be towards reporters who talk rubbish. They're not welcome at all.
You were in court and surely your intelligence tells you that they had no evidence except hearsay... It was laughable.. My dad exposed fraud. Which you didn't cover... The g4s security guard was violent and got arrested.. The judge walked out THREE TIME'S!!! There's so much you could've talked about.. But you publish wrong information on something you know nothing about.
Do your job or please, find someone who will report it in an unbias, correct way.
Like i say. We've been nothing but welcoming to you, you've had it explained to you numerous times... When it was explained on the phone and by someone who analyses these types of documents on a daily basis. We counted it had been explained 12 times to you. And STILL. You couldn't understand..
Contact b and b and see what proof they have. You were in court. They provided nothing but hearsay
And the judge acknowledged this and acknowledged their fraudulent claims.
You're welcome to follow this story.. But please, don't report crap. Especially when you don't know how to read legalese.
In the crowd you've already begun to tarnish how you were perceived.. You had the public favour I'm not sure after your reporting you'll be as welcome.
Go speak to my dad.. Get the true facts and do your job please.

Craig Crawford
https://www.facebook.com/craig.crawford.39?fref=nf
User avatar
bertiebert
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:18 pm

What can one say, Ellie got it completely wrong, she was obviously not intelligent enough to cover this story and will suffer the wrath of the goofers.

[guilty]

Some confusion from Craig about the difference between a mortgage and an endowment policy.

[rumpelstilzchen]

You're in no way qualified to decipher legalese..

Unlike you, your father, Guy Taylor, Mr Ebert, Ceylon, Roger Hayes......

[rumpelstilzchen]

The next thing we will see is them telling us the judge doesn't even understand his own decision and they are going to have to explain it to him.

[guilty]

You're in no way qualified to decipher legalese..

Unlike you, your father, Guy Taylor, Mr Ebert, Ceylon, Roger Hayes......

Well....

When it was explained on the phone and by someone who analyses these types of documents on a daily basis.

[rumpelstilzchen]

When it was explained on the phone and by someone who analyses these types of documents on a daily basis.

Hurrah for Ebert the Brave!

[guilty]

Do your job or please, find someone who will report it in an unbias, correct way.

You mean... someone like a judge?

[rumpelstilzchen]

The judge walked out THREE TIME'S!!!

This shows they are in to the FOTL woo. They believe each time the judge leaves when he comes back the court has changed. It goes through a specific order. I can't remember off the top of my head but I think one time it is Ecclesiastical, then there is admiralty law.... I forget the other one. Complete fruitcakes.

ETA:
Here are the details:

Ever wonder what the real reason is that a Judge Runs Out of the Court Room?

Your Honor I am a Living Being. The Flesh lives and the blood flows.
I ask humbly for Remedy.
Judge Leaves because he does not want to give remedy, but stay in honor.
Judge comes back establishes the court again and goes on like nothing has happened. The court transforms in to a maritime court, a higher court of jurisdiction. You must re-establish your standing once again:
Your honor I am a living being. The flesh lives and the blood flows. Your honor I humbly ask for cure and maintenance.
Because you are in an Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction court now you ask for cure and maintenance.
The Judge may be totally freaked out at this point and leave again if you are in a Federal Court. If comes back again, he comes back as a priest, so you are in a Temple now. When the judge comes back on the third time he is a priest under Cannon Law. Thus you say the following:
Your honor I wish to establish that I am a living being. The Flesh lives and the blood flows and we are sovereign and nothing stands between myself and the divine.
If you do not do this then you have no standing in court and are treated as cargo going to a warehouse, thus Chattel Property with no rights.
Listen to this phone conversation, it explains the basis of why you do this procedure and gives an in depth background on the Court and what is really happening and why.

Full audio: http://freedomfiles.org/one-heaven-in...

http://freedomfiles.org/court-procedu...

http://www.one-heaven.org/

[wanglepin]

The next thing we will see is them telling us the judge doesn't even understand his own decision and they are going to have to explain it to him.

precious.
Thanks for that rumple. I need cheering up after watching Tom's video.

[guilty]

Just had a look back at the Nottingham Post Facebook site. There are about 50 comments there berating the reporter for bad journalism and saying "HE WON!"
https://www.facebook.com/TheNottinghamPost

[Hyrion]

I often simply don't understand why people fail to see the blindingly obvious.

On reflection, I don't think there is any conscious deception. I believe Mr Ebert has a mental illness

That's one possible explanation.

Another is the "blind spot" shared by humanity - and I'm not referring to Tom/Ebert but yourself.

It's my personal experiences and observations that - in general - humans (myself included) have a tendency to view others as they view themselves. Ironic given so many of us do not want to be considered "part of the crowd".

The best way I can help explain that is to describe that "blind spot" by several analogies.

• the average thief tends to think of everyone as a thief

• the average person who does not deliberately lie tends to trust everyone as no one would deliberately lie

• the average person with strong family bonds who would never dream of harming - even verbally - a family member tends to view everyone as having those same strong family bonds and moral ethics

So.... to use the third analogy as an example, when said person with strong family ethical bonds runs into a family member who is deliberately abusive: it's hard for them to understand why.

Some of us are no longer naively innocent - and so we can see other possibilities such as Tom knowing full well he refused to pay anymore up-front, knew full well that the endowment value was no longer available (because he cashed out or stopped paying very early) and is knowingly deliberately lying to others in an effort to somehow rip off the system. Note the bolding on the word possibilities - I don't know what Tom really knows or why he's doing what he is, I can't read minds. Only Tom knows. What I've outlined is one of many possibilities that would be the actual reality of the situation.

Some of us are compassionate enough that we are inclined to produce explanations for such circumstances. Such as figuring the person is mentally ill (rather then just malicious) and if only the person could get help, everything would be right as rain.

In short: you don't understand why they can't see the blindingly obvious because it's blindingly obvious to you. Additionally, you don't know what "their" (and each individual has their own) real intent is or what "their" actual knowledge base is. Knowing "their" real intent and knowledge would likely help clear up why "they" won't/can't see the blindingly obvious.

[Hyrion]

The problem is these people will only interpret decisions in a way that ensures they will arrive at their preconceived result.

• 1) Selective reading

• 2) Selective understanding

• 3) Hold oneself above the Law - including one's own Law

3 of the mandatory requirements for anyone interested in the OPCA path.

[Normal Wisdom]

I often simply don't understand why people fail to see the blindingly obvious.

On reflection, I don't think there is any conscious deception. I believe Mr Ebert has a mental illness

That's one possible explanation.

Another is the "blind spot" shared by humanity - and I'm not referring to Tom/Ebert but yourself.

It's my personal experiences and observations that - in general - humans (myself included) have a tendency to view others as they view themselves. Ironic given so many of us do not want to be considered "part of the crowd".

The best way I can help explain that is to describe that "blind spot" by several analogies.

• the average thief tends to think of everyone as a thief

• the average person who does not deliberately lie tends to trust everyone as no one would deliberately lie

• the average person with strong family bonds who would never dream of harming - even verbally - a family member tends to view everyone as having those same strong family bonds and moral ethics

So.... to use the third analogy as an example, when said person with strong family ethical bonds runs into a family member who is deliberately abusive: it's hard for them to understand why.

Some of us are no longer naively innocent - and so we can see other possibilities such as Tom knowing full well he refused to pay anymore up-front, knew full well that the endowment value was no longer available (because he cashed out or stopped paying very early) and is knowingly deliberately lying to others in an effort to somehow rip off the system. Note the bolding on the word possibilities - I don't know what Tom really knows or why he's doing what he is, I can't read minds. Only Tom knows. What I've outlined is one of many possibilities that would be the actual reality of the situation.

Some of us are compassionate enough that we are inclined to produce explanations for such circumstances. Such as figuring the person is mentally ill (rather then just malicious) and if only the person could get help, everything would be right as rain.

In short: you don't understand why they can't see the blindingly obvious because it's blindingly obvious to you. Additionally, you don't know what "their" (and each individual has their own) real intent is or what "their" actual knowledge base is. Knowing "their" real intent and knowledge would likely help clear up why "they" won't/can't see the blindingly obvious.

You're right of course. Bloody annoying isn't it.

[vampireLOREN]

I often simply don't understand why people fail to see the blindingly obvious.

On reflection, I don't think there is any conscious deception. I believe Mr Ebert has a mental illness

That's one possible explanation.

Another is the "blind spot" shared by humanity - and I'm not referring to Tom/Ebert but yourself.

It's my personal experiences and observations that - in general - humans (myself included) have a tendency to view others as they view themselves. Ironic given so many of us do not want to be considered "part of the crowd".

The best way I can help explain that is to describe that "blind spot" by several analogies.

• the average thief tends to think of everyone as a thief

• the average person who does not deliberately lie tends to trust everyone as no one would deliberately lie

• the average person with strong family bonds who would never dream of harming - even verbally - a family member tends to view everyone as having those same strong family bonds and moral ethics

So.... to use the third analogy as an example, when said person with strong family ethical bonds runs into a family member who is deliberately abusive: it's hard for them to understand why.

Some of us are no longer naively innocent - and so we can see other possibilities such as Tom knowing full well he refused to pay anymore up-front, knew full well that the endowment value was no longer available (because he cashed out or stopped paying very early) and is knowingly deliberately lying to others in an effort to somehow rip off the system. Note the bolding on the word possibilities - I don't know what Tom really knows or why he's doing what he is, I can't read minds. Only Tom knows. What I've outlined is one of many possibilities that would be the actual reality of the situation.

Some of us are compassionate enough that we are inclined to produce explanations for such circumstances. Such as figuring the person is mentally ill (rather then just malicious) and if only the person could get help, everything would be right as rain.

In short: you don't understand why they can't see the blindingly obvious because it's blindingly obvious to you. Additionally, you don't know what "their" (and each individual has their own) real intent is or what "their" actual knowledge base is. Knowing "their" real intent and knowledge would likely help clear up why "they" won't/can't see the blindingly obvious.

You're right of course. Bloody annoying isn't it.

And Boy's, all of the above is what makes this enthralling entertainment. I personally think some form of delusion or illness is involved. But whatever it certainly is not boring.
And one final thought.....there but for good fortune.....