UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Normal Wisdom]

With Guy Taylor having failed to get any interest from MI5, Tom Crawford has taken the lead in deciding where to turn next for help with the rampant lunacy "fraud and corruption" that GOODF have been exposing. And the answer is EVERYWHERE.

His circular is certainly comprehensive, throwing in a whole range of hard luck stories from people who have repeatedly failed to convince the courts that their ludicrous claims have any merit.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 49#p338164

Although I suspect this will be filed under "green ink brigade" by most if not all the recipients, it would be good if this did finally elect some kind of response to try to deal with this arrant nonsense which must be increasingly taking up valuable court and police time.

Incidentally I had always pigeonholed Tom Crawford as one of the lunatic fringe of GOOFers whose involvement with the sovruns only began with his attempted eviction in July. It is now obvious that he is increasingly taking a leading role.

[littleFred]

Complaining to government, police and judges that the government, police and judges are corrupt. Ha! Neat move. If the G,P&Js arrest themselves for corruption, they are clearly guilty of corruption. If they don't it is because they are corrupt.

It's a shame that many of the links are broken. Shame that they don't have a consistent spelling of Mr Ebert's first name.

Shame that they are complaining about the "rape and liquidation of 11 steel and engineering companies" while other GOOFers speculate that men and women can't steal from corporations because (among other reasons) they are immune from the Theft Act.

But it provides some more terms for search engines to chew over: Alpa Forensics; David Lawrence Fabb.

[Normal Wisdom]

I'm not sure if you realised it but David Fabb is Director of Alpa Forensics. Here is his story (from his point of view):

http://edm1297.files.wordpress.com/2011 ... sis-df.pdf

Very similar to Mr Ebert , a serially unsuccessful litigant who consequently becomes an "expert" in legal process and documentation.

The attachment also introduces Sabine McNeill also known as Sabine Kurjo McNeill. She seems to have a lot of involvement with these bank "fraud" and similar cases although not obviously of the sovrun persuasion.

[littleFred]

Indeed. The BBC reported in 2003 the administrators being called in to David Fabb Holdings Ltd.

Was DFHL one of these evil corporations that British SovCits usually deplore? Or perhaps it is seen as relatively benign because it was swallowed up by bigger sharks.

[PeanutGallery]

I also thought that Tom Crawford was little more than a run of the mill GOOF with the usual reasoning gap. But it seems he is moving towards becoming an organiser and leader. Of course that means that when the bank comes back for it's money it will be "dark forces trying to shut him up" and not y'know the bank coming back for it's money.

Having had a look at the forensic analysis, it doesn't come across as very forensic or analytical. It claims that he was "bankrupted even though solvent". This puzzled me, so I went over to Bailii and had a peep to see if they had anything on David Fabb.

They Did!.

It seems that contrary to being solvent, Mr Fabb owed a substantial amount of money roughly £88,000 odd (although this was only 4% of the amount that had originally been claimed against him). In fact it's that 96% that was abandoned that Fabb was complaining about in court. He seems to have protested that because the claimants dropped such a large amount, the entire prosecution was malicious. It fails.

[Normal Wisdom]

I was alerted to the wonderful world of sovereign citizens by last year's failed attempt to evict Tom Crawford. This was reported by The Daily Mail as the heart warming story of how "neighbours" frustrated the attempts to evict a cancer suffering pensioner who had paid his mortgage for 25 years. What they didn't report was that Tom was a convert to (and soon to become major proponent of) GOODF nonsense who had paid the interest on his mortgage but then decided that he would not pay any of the principal loan.

It appears that bailiffs have arrived again this morning, without notice (so I assume they must be from the High Court). This will be interesting.

[Normal Wisdom]

Update: It seems that it wasn't High Court Enforcement Officers seeking to evict Tom Crawford but simply a bailiff seeking to deliver advanced notification of eviction on 23rd January.

Last time around 200 supporters turned up to block the bailiffs carrying out the eviction and it's likely that similar numbers will be on site next week. Unless the bailiffs are going to turn up mob handed and are prepared for a proper confrontation then they are just wasting their time.

[ArthurWankspittle]

A few points. I guess the date is an "on or after" date, so the bailiffs can turn up whenever. The court is going to get fed up with the plaintiff coming back saying it has been prevented from carrying out the court's order, thereby making the protesters at risk of being in contempt of court. It is perfectly legal to ask for a police presence to avoid a breach of the peace. If that means 50 cops in riot gear and the police are willing and able to provide such numbers then they will turn up.

[PeanutGallery]

I am surprised given what happened the last time that the bank hasn't opted to get HCEO's in, simply because they can execute a writ of possession without telling the debtor. I also think that ultimately the people who are going to suffer from this 'protest' will be Tom and his family. If they deter the bailiffs for a second time, the bank will just get a warrant allowing them to evict without notice (a la Cleveland Rhoden) and the costs for pursuing this will just be added to the debt.

As such Tom may find himself losing his home and still owing a considerable sum as a result of his attempt to get out of debt free. Of course I imagine that when he is evicted, because it is a matter of when, the Goofs will no doubt write it off as being the system not wanting to let Tom win and this a corrupt system.

[Hercule Parrot]

If they deter the bailiffs for a second time, the bank will just get a warrant allowing them to evict without notice (a la Cleveland Rhoden) and the costs for pursuing this will just be added to the debt.

Indeed. And it has to be so, our system of law must not be superseded by mob rule.

[wanglepin]

Toms new release.

"it was an act of terrorism at 5 am"

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... LqgxDSsV8E

[Normal Wisdom]

Still never really addressed the fundamental issue that he created the mortgage underpayment through his own ignorance and thinks he can get away with simply refusing to pay what he owes.

[littleFred]

Tom confirms that he came to the end of an interest-only mortgage. He doesn't say, but I assume, he has nothing in place to pay back the capital.

He asserts that the capital has been paid back thrice-over. I suppose this is SovCit garbage that the money was never lent in the first place, and interest is unlawful so that was really used to pay back the capital, and so on.

I don't think he's ever said what happened to the endowment policies that were initially set up to pay off the capital when they matured. Did he stop paying these? Perhaps he continued paying, but they became detached from the mortgage, and have paid out to Tom who now thinks he can keep the cash and the house, thanks to rent-a-mob. Perhaps he stopped paying so he had more to spend on everyday living.

I faced a similar problem when endowment maturities looked bleak. My building society warned me it might not pay off the mortgage. So I scrimped and saved and paid off the mortgage myself many years before maturity. I continued paying the endowment charge so it paid me a decent lump of cash at maturity. Yes, as it happens, it would have been sufficient to pay off the mortgage, if I hadn't already done so.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I don't think he's ever said what happened to the endowment policies that were initially set up to pay off the capital when they matured.

What's to say he even had one? There were times in the property booms when you could get interest only mortgages and just had to promise to pay back the capital at the end. There were more ways than just endowments to do it if you actually were planning ahead to pay it back.

[Normal Wisdom]

Arthur raises an interesting scenario but what I think happened is that like so many cases (including my own), he took out an endowment mortgage and after a while it became apparent that it would not pay off the capital.

To resolve the issue, B&B converted the mortgage to a repayment type (what TC calls a "part and part"). It appears that TC took exception to this and created a fuss.

TC says that he thought B&B had as requested reverted to the endowment mortgage although this doesn't make any sense since it was already known that this would not pay off the capital. In fact they had created an interest only mortgage presumably leaving TC to find a way to fund the repayment of capital. It is unclear what happened to the endowment policy that existed up to that point.

I don't think that TC denies these facts. Indeed fairly early on he said that he expected B&B to pursue him for the capital sum. His view is that the confusion is all the fault of B&B and that having paid what was requested for the 25 year term of the loan (either interest plus the endowment premium and later the interest only) he has paid "enough" and refuses to pay any more.

The bit that is difficult to understand is why he was so opposed to the repayment mortgage solution. It was this that originated the confusion. Perhaps B&B were in part to blame for the confusion but TC seems to be largely ignorant about the whole issue. Bearing in mind we are talking about a man who believes that the word insurance is evidence of maritime commercial law (in-shore-ance) then this is perhaps not surprising. Incidentally it appears that in fact the mortgage was taken out by his wife and not TC himself.

[PeanutGallery]

What does seem interesting is that over on GooF some of the 'Guru-posters' are actively taking steps to distance themselves from Tom's methods and proclaiming that he will fail because he hasn't taken the steps they propose.

1. you claim the mortgage has been paid 3 times,
i know it is possible to prove the banks have been paid many times, my question is have you got the actual proof the mortgage has been paid 3 times? i know how much research it takes to get that proof and i don't believe you have that proof imo. you see when you have this kind of proof and you bring a claim, their claims will disappear, most mortgage case wins are settled out of court with solid proof.

Smiling thinks Tom is going to fail because he can't prove that he's paid the mortgage, this is true of course but not for the reasons Smiling thinks, Tom is in this hole because he hasn't paid the capital on the loan. He's only paid interest or sums towards an endowment policy.

Smiling also thinks Tom needs to bring a claim.

3. regarding warrants and court orders, usually the other parties get asked by the court what order do they wish to be made. if it's their court.... i.e. they paid the fee for any hearing. so no judge need write the order, the other party writes the order.....or the clerk will write the order or the banks solicitor will write the order as per a court of record..... ALWAYS, it's how courts of records work..... see county court act 1984 (for proof.... all county courts shall be a court of record and shall have a seal) Even though it's not a proper court of record if you know what one is, however if you don't void that order based on jurisdiction and other and put your claim in WITH PROOF, not simply quoting legislation..... then any claim especially in the position of defendant has no merit and will be taken to be a court of record cos you did nothing.....
WHY you may ask? because it's their court.... and you haven't brought or created your court, so you have no claim, you are only defending their claim.
unfortunately since they have their court in place already their orders need to be made void for the right reasons and then you put your fresh claim in asap, like straight in after voiding their orders etc.

So Tom needs to bring a claim, because if he pays the court fees it means it's his court and the Judge will do what he wants. This is not how courts work. If that was how courts work they would achieve exactly nothing. The court has assessed the claim the lender has on the property against the claim Tom has, it has found for the lender. The court didn't reach this decision without considering the implications of it's decision and knew what the result of this would be. While the decision might seem unfair, especially to Tom, it is actually fair on people like Normal Wisdom who seem to have found themselves in the same situation as Tom and who took steps to repay the capital they had borrowed.

8. i realise you may not like what i'm typing, and it would be great for you to win against the banks, i really wish that for you .... however the research i've done and corroboration with others dealing with mortgages and others that have studied and done their mortgage research has led me to believe the information i've posted above to be true.

you have to bring your claim and i think time is running out for you if you don't.

It would seem that Smiling seems to think that Tom is going to lose and it will be because Tom didn't follow Smilings methodology. Smilings research tells him that.

Of course Smiling is both right and wrong, Tom will lose, and Smiling is right about this but not for the reason Smiling thinks, it will be because Tom didn't pay off the capital on his mortgage. Tom made that choice because he didn't understand what an endowment mortgage is, how it works, or what type of mortgage he actually had (this is not to say that I think the product was mis-sold, rather that I think Tom was incapable of understanding no matter how carefully the product was described to him and no matter how clearly the risks were explained) or that at some point over the time Tom had the mortgage he changed his mind about paying it.

[wanglepin]

or that at some point over the time Tom had the mortgage he changed his mind about paying it.

This is what I believe. That time was probably when he discovered getoutofintomoredebtfree. And other freeman lunacy.They will evict him and he will lose his home.
He has promised a video of all his evidence that proves fraud by the Banks/ Building Society/Police/Bailiffs and Courts etc, but I cannot see that happening either and certainly not before his eviction.

[Normal Wisdom]

It seems that the esteemed "forensic document specialist" Mr Ebert has examined the documentation and has discovered that rather than owing any money in fact Tom Crawford has paid too much

To bolster his credibility, I read that Mr Ebert has also undertaken work for the police. I suspect that may be a misunderstanding of the phrase "helping the police with their enquiries".

[ArthurWankspittle]

To bolster his credibility, I read that Mr Ebert has also undertaken work for the police. I suspect that may be a misunderstanding of the phrase "helping the police with their enquiries".

Or grassing up everyone else using an illegal scheme to get a reduced sentence?

[PeanutGallery]

Do we have a link for Mr Eberts 'forensic' analysis? Or some sort of summary? I could do with a laugh.