UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Normal Wisdom]

Since it was an ex-parte hearing (or at least meant to be) I assume it was to suspend the current possession order pending an appeal against it. I'm guessing the barrister from Walker Morris were representing UK asset Resolution Ltd (who took over the debt from Bradford & Bingley).

I guess the grounds of the appeal could be that he doesn't owe the money (due to the money creation argument) or that the possession order is fraudulent as the documentation is not correctly signed, sealed etc. Or both.

I'm surprised that the allegation of fraudulent court orders has got as far at it apparently has. I cannot believe it will get much further.

It's slightly depressing that like Guy Taylor this situation is being so strung out but I have to remind myself that Mr Ebert launched over 100 civil and criminal actions and achieved nothing apart from being notionally and literally barred from court, evicted and imprisoned.

[Normal Wisdom]

On the general subject of evictions, this one has a bit of everything. Pretty much the full range of protests by the supporters (mercifully few on this occasion) countered by unusually switched on court officials and police. And as a special bonus an appearance of the "promissory note".

Two other points:
It gives a good example why bailiffs should be careful about letting supporters inspect documentation
If this really was over only £110 then WTF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U51r-roJqwU&spfreload=10

[littleFred]

It needs a sign of nature, it needs a sign of life to make it valid.

Oh gosh, I must do more research, I overlooked that rule in CPR.

The promissory note is hard to read, but is for a sum larger than £220,000. If the amount owed is only £110, I doubt the PN would be so large.

[Hyrion]

It never dawned on me before just how little the OPCA litigant group does not want to allow anyone else to speak.

I think it speaks volumes that they are totally reluctant to hear what others have to say. In my humble opinion, they know they're clearly in the wrong and seem to think that if they can just prevent someone else from saying anything against their position they'll "win".

[PeanutGallery]

I think with the OPCA it's not so much a desire to not allow the other to speak as it is a desire to avoid listening to a contrary argument. They don't want to be wrong about this.

I don't think it means that they know they are in the wrong, however it does strike me that it's behaviour remarkably similar to those who actually have been brain washed or otherwise taken in by a cult. What is happening is very clearly that their belief, that the warrants are fraudulent and need to be thrice turned widdershins to have validity, is very obviously at odds with the reality being presented to them.

Because of this, they fall into the habit of repeating their 'holy scripture' more and more, baying that the warrant needs a signature or a seal or whatever else they have been taught to believe.

Of course when it turns out that they are wrong about the warrant, it's not because they were wrong about the warrant, Occam's razor is blunted with these folks, and they begin to complain about how it's all obviously an imagined corruption.

Again bringing along my observation of how strange it is, I am sure that early in the video their is a reference to 'only following orders' and how that held up at Nuremberg (a clear reference to Nazi's = Bad) and then at the very end of the video that they have learned that a small amount of citizens cannot hope to prevail against the "JEWdiciary" [sic].

[notorial dissent]

Or it's simply that they are right and therefor don't need to hear any other viewpoint in the matter since theirs is the only one that matters.

Besides, they can only hold one thought in their little heads at a time.

[Pottapaug1938]

It never dawned on me before just how little the OPCA litigant group does not want to allow anyone else to speak.

I think it speaks volumes that they are totally reluctant to hear what others have to say. In my humble opinion, they know they're clearly in the wrong and seem to think that if they can just prevent someone else from saying anything against their position they'll "win".

None of these fringe sites or blogs tolerate any significant dissent. Planet Merrill is a prime case in point -- a family member, "Bobbinville", was banned because of suspicions that he was my alter ego and for being a "Quatlude"; and if I were ever to try to register there myself, my request would be swiftly denied. And yet, they come here and demand that we take their assertions seriously.

[JamesVincent]

It never dawned on me before just how little the OPCA litigant group does not want to allow anyone else to speak.

I think it speaks volumes that they are totally reluctant to hear what others have to say. In my humble opinion, they know they're clearly in the wrong and seem to think that if they can just prevent someone else from saying anything against their position they'll "win".

Just about all Sov'run and Freeman philosophies can be summed up in a couple of words:

Equivocation

Argumentum ad hominem

Ok, that was more then a couple of words but you get the point.

[arayder]

OPCAers deny precedent and hence can't stand it when it is pointed out that their theory du jour was long ago rejected by the courts. Faced with the reality that they are beating a dead horse OPCAers opine that the courts are evil and corrupt.

OPCAers love to dress up already failed arguments in new language and pretend they are arguing a whole new point of law. Since this trick gets praise at freeman/sov/tp forums the OPCAer figures he must be on to something and doesn't want to hear anything to the contrary.

OPCAers are strikingly ignorant of history and are oblivious to the stark reality that many of the positions they advocate have already been settled through the blood and sweat of a society which isn't going back on its ancestors sacrifices just so some me-first OPCAer can have his way at a drunken traffic stop.

Most of all the freeman/sov cult has an unwritten rule that no whacky theory is to be rejected, or even questioned. If one wants to see the cult get crazy all one has to do is visit the WFS forum and see what happens when our own bmxninja tries to lay a little reality therapy on the cult's wannabe scholars.

[notorial dissent]

I think it is probably safe to say that originality is not their long suit, or something they really comprehend.

[littleFred]

Regarding the Luton evction: Michael Grant-Sinclair explains in a video interview that the fundamental problem is mortgage arrears, following an accident that kept him off work. The legal dance has been going on since June 2013, if not earlier. (Near the end he says, "For five years we've been doing this on our own.") Michael's legal argument centres on whether his mortgage company sold everything on, therefore he doesn't owe them money and they can't repossess. (It seems to me that even if he is correct, this doesn't help him as then he owes someone else, who could repossess.) The £110 was for some extra charge. The eviction was over a total sum, which Michael doesn't give. He tried to pay off the full mortgage with the promissory note mentioned above.

"According to Lord Denning, that mortgage is now paid."

Wrong. Denning said that the person who made the promissory note has to pay out on it. But Michael probably has no intention of keeping his "promise to pay" £220,000.

Some of Michael's legal argument can be viewed at Bailii.

He's been talking with Guy Taylor and "Roger" [Hayes, I suppose]. Yeah, that figures.

"For five years we've been doing this on our own, and every knock you get, you sit there and think am I right? But it's something that you know is right because they wouldn't be putting up such obstacles if it wasn't."

Yeah, sure. Or maybe you borrowed a load of money, and they want it back.

Michael comes across as an HGV (=American "truck") driver who fell on hard times, had problems paying off his mortgage, and was sucked into the usual SovCit garbage. Except that this isn't his first time. In 2001 he appealed against an order for repossession following mortgage arrears. He lost.

[Normal Wisdom]

Good stuff littleFred

[Flying Daggers]

Regarding the Luton evction: Michael Grant-Sinclair explains in a video interview that the fundamental problem is mortgage arrears, following an accident that kept him off work. The legal dance has been going on since June 2013, if not earlier. (Near the end he says, "For five years we've been doing this on our own.") Michael's legal argument centres on whether his mortgage company sold everything on, therefore he doesn't owe them money and they can't repossess. (It seems to me that even if he is correct, this doesn't help him as then he owes someone else, who could repossess.) The £110 was for some extra charge. The eviction was over a total sum, which Michael doesn't give. He tried to pay off the full mortgage with the promissory note mentioned above.

"According to Lord Denning, that mortgage is now paid."

Wrong. Denning said that the person who made the promissory note has to pay out on it. But Michael probably has no intention of keeping his "promise to pay" £220,000.

Some of Michael's legal argument can be viewed at Bailii.

He's been talking with Guy Taylor and "Roger" [Hayes, I suppose]. Yeah, that figures.

"For five years we've been doing this on our own, and every knock you get, you sit there and think am I right? But it's something that you know is right because they wouldn't be putting up such obstacles if it wasn't."

Yeah, sure. Or maybe you borrowed a load of money, and they want it back.

Michael comes across as an HGV (=American "truck") driver who fell on hard times, had problems paying off his mortgage, and was sucked into the usual SovCit garbage. Except that this isn't his first time. In 2001 he appealed against an order for repossession following mortgage arrears. He lost.

For a change it looks like this one is the consumer action group and not GOODF

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... wing)-nbsp

Looks like this one might deserve its own thread

*EDIT

Looks to have moved from the consumer action group to GOODF

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... NNmsMOnw0M

Mr Sinclair had to pay £8,500 in costs, looks like a few others got burned to by 'applecart / applecart1'

Could this applecart be guy or roger ?

[PeanutGallery]

There is a rather substantial difference between what a promissory note actually is and what a Sov thinks a promissory note is.

A Promissory note is nothing more than a promise to pay an amount at any future time. It's not an IOU nor does it have any conditions attached to it. What gives it value is the strength of the promise and how likely that promise is to be kept. The Sov's think that be presenting a made up note they have 'paid' they also think that by putting some mumbo jumbo on the note they can make it so that attempting to enforce the promise (getting them to do what they have said to do) will dishonour the note. However the mumbo jumbo removes the value.

Cash money evolved from Promissory notes but cash is no longer quite the same beastie.

[wanglepin]

"According to Lord Denning, that mortgage is now paid."

Wrong. Denning said that the person who made the promissory note has to pay out on it. But Michael probably has no intention of keeping his "promise to pay" £220,000.

The quote that freemen/ sov’s just love to quote as many now know, is the Lord Denning quote, as if in some way proves their theory.
I found it in this case
Fielding & Platt Ltd -v- Selim Najjar; CA 17-Jan-1969

We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary.

I shall post this in the Roger Hayes thread as Hayes is now telling us all about promissory notes in his new video > viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10214

[littleFred]

Collectors of PN whack-jobbery might enjoy this Scottish judgement:

The appellant's position appeared to be that the note was as good as cash. The appellant suggested that, in the event of default by him on the note, it would be dealt with in the same way as a default by the Bank of England and his promissory note might become part of the national debt. ...

The sheriff, indeed, noted that before him the appellant informed him that he did not intend to honour any promise contained in any promissory note.

[grixit]

Never say the actual name of The Scottish Judgement, for fear of bad luck.

I see that as with so many freedom fighters, it all began with a refusal to pay child support.

[Hercule Parrot]

On the general subject of evictions, this one has a bit of everything.

It gives a good example why bailiffs should be careful about letting supporters inspect documentation

I do not understand why the bailiff-types handed the papers to a crowd of unidentified people in the street. It was an exceptionally stupid idea to pander to their purported "right to validate" the documents, or to enter into debates with the crowd. The Police who attend then fall into the same trap, trying to deal with a dozen uber-stupids shouting about "wet ink signatures", "Nazis" and "promissory notes".

Interesting that the final text on the video blames "the JEWdiciary". Bit of a clue there.

[Normal Wisdom]

On the general subject of evictions, this one has a bit of everything.

It gives a good example why bailiffs should be careful about letting supporters inspect documentation

I do not understand why the bailiff-types handed the papers to a crowd of unidentified people in the street. It was an exceptionally stupid idea to pander to their purported "right to validate" the documents, or to enter into debates with the crowd. The Police who attend then fall into the same trap, trying to deal with a dozen uber-stupids shouting about "wet ink signatures", "Nazis" and "promissory notes".

Interesting that the final text on the video blames "the JEWdiciary". Bit of a clue there.

I agree that it was a mistake to hand the documentation over. Bailiffs rarely do it and it was interesting to see what happened when they did. I thought the bloke from the bailiffs (or whatever he was) was very ineffectual. The two women were much calmer and more switched on. Pity they are not all like that.

I thought the police sergeant dealt brilliantly with the protestors. He let them have their say, listened to the court officers, made a sensible decision and then clearly communicated (or at least tried to) what was going to happen. Once he had done that nobody was going to stop it happening. I also thought it was good that he confirmed his (and my) understanding that the Writ of Possession does not need to be signed by a judge or anybody else and that the stamp was a proper court seal.

Funny to see the protestors arguments starting from the pseudo-legal, running through appeals to bailiffs to have a heart, turning to claims of genocide and ending up at the conclusion that the only way to stop the eviction is through force of numbers (which on this occasion they didn't have).

As discussed elsewhere the casual anti-semitism seems to be an increasing feature. I wonder if that dear old gentleman Tom Crawford agrees. I have asked him whether he agreed with the claim that Lee Rigby didn't exist but he hasn't replied yet.

[littleFred]

I think the police wisely listened to the protesters. Dialogue is better than riot-control.

The bailiff-bloke took the warrant from a female bailiff and handed it to a third-party, and that seemed unwise to me. But the police got it back.

Sadly, the protesters won't be convinced by simple logic. By their own definition, the warrant is invalid. Their definition is the only one that matters to them. If the actual rules changed so that the warrant needed to be signed by a judge, protesters would then claim it had to be signed in a particular colour of ink at a particular angle.

The actual Civil Procedure Rules are fairly clear and fairly easy to understand. Another video re-published by Ceylon has a bloke spouting garbage about "Crown Prosecution Rules" that require a seal that indents paper. The GOOFers love this one. But one GOOFer thinks the bloke with a "THUG" hat is a policeman.

Mr Grant-Sinclair's eviction needed five arrests out of perhaps 20-30 protesters. I fear we will see larger demonstrations with protesters illegally preventing court orders from being performed, with mass arrests and large numbers of people carted off in police buses. And we taxpayers will pick up a large bill.