UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[littleFred]

Video Tom Crawford Success At Court 14 04 2015

While Tom and family were at court, a group of about 25 guarded the house. With all these visitors, the bin lorry couldn't get up the cul-de-sac, so the mob helpfully wheeled the bins down the hill and up again.

15m 0s: Tom arrives back from court. He doesn't have his glasses and has problems reading the verdict. He is confused about whether he has permission to appeal. [He doesn't.] The suspension of the warrant of possession has been lifted. Ah, that's what it says but not what it means. He has permission to appeal. But he also doesn't have permission to appeal, and that is because there is nothing to appeal, which is because the claim for possession was a fraudulent document. Paragraph 91 of the judgement [which I suspect was the only para that was in any way in Tom's favour]: "Here, Mr Crawford has a point..." with the dry witticism about computers. Fraud from the outset makes everything void so there was no [valid] possession order so there is nothing to appeal against.

The result couldn't have been better. He thanked the judge for having done a great service. At that, gobsmacked jaws dropped throughout the court staff.

Yes, he has been taking advice from the Mr Ebert, who has been "absolutely brilliant".

It's a great day. Now Tom can start proceedings against them. Is his house totally safe now? Well, Tom isn't sure. He is dealing with criminals, so you never know.

[I am slightly relieved that Tom isn't sure his house is safe. This means that the next action taken against him, which I think will be a notice of possession, won't come as a total surprise. Meanwhile, bouyed by his total misunderstanding of this failure, Tom will probably appeal against the refusal of permission to appeal, perhaps taking it to Europe or somewhere silly.]

[grixit]

I noted the phrase "zionist kabal" in one of the comments.

[grixit]

Except it's you who has the picture the wrong way round. Up is down, black is white, defeat is victory.

You forgot IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

[Bones]

I think someone close to Tom needs to explain to him that the hearing was an application to appeal. When an application is heard, really there are only two possible outcomes.

The application can be granted - a win for Tom

The application can be refused - a win for B&B.

As we know the application made by Tom was refused by the Judge. In otherwords, Tom lost and B&B won.

Tom has said that the application was refused because the original possession warrant was a fraudulent document.

However, the hearing was an application to appeal the possession order and not the warrant. In terms of the warrant, Tom's claims do not hold water as the Judge hss said that the stay on its execution has been lifted.

The possession can now be enforced either with the original warrant or after a new one has been obtained.

The comments about legalese is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to hide that all of the arguments made by all the SovCit Guru's are wrong. It is a hard pill for them t swollow and they are brainwashing Sue and Tom to make them think their home is now safe.

I have noted that King Goofer Ceylon is unusually silent about this "victory"

[Bones]

Another article confirming that Tom lost and the claims of success on social media are wrong

http://www.nottinghampost.com/going/sto ... story.html

Looks like Tom's daughter and fan club calling the Nottingham Post yesterday has made them push this story hard and to make sure there is no doubt that Tom lost

[grixit]

I just see it. As the cops look on, a bunch of workers are removing Tom's possessions from the house. Out the front door come two of them carrying a couch. Tom Crawford is seated on the couch, loudly humming "Pomp and Circumstance". This later appears in a video as "Tom's Victory Parade".

[Normal Wisdom]

The frustration resulting from the frightening level of ignorance, stupidity and close-mindedness revealed by this case actually kept me awake last night. I don't claim any special intelligence or knowledge (hence my username) so 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 arising from his own personal situation with a long demonstrated predisposition to interpret any legal situation in his favour irrespective of how strong the evidence or statements to the contrary. Guy Taylor seems to be heading the same way.

As someone said before, Tom is simply stupid and unable to grasp even relatively simple concepts. Ultimately it is this that caused the situation in the first place. I'm afraid his family are the same. They are being led by the nose by their "legal advisers".

As discussed here recently, GOODF contributors etc are positively discouraged from thinking for themselves or asking questions. This was amply demonstrated by Sallinae's view that "if Tom is happy, I'm happy". One gets the strong impression that most of his supporters have simply accepted Tom's word that it is good news without looking or thinking any further.

As you may have seen, I have been attempting to find some sort of chink in the armour of denial by commenting on the various YT videos. Mostly I am ignored (presumably I am a troll or a shill or whatever) but a couple of people have engaged although I am still a long way from any kind of breakthrough in understanding.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Incidentally, SalliNae began her "if Tom's happy" post with:

A few selected paragraphs does not tell the whole story and until the whole judgment is read in its entirety, rather than extracts

See how SalliNae changes the rules to suit his/her requirements. There is no problem when a poster plucks a single sentence, obiter mind you, from the (now famous) Denning judgment. Not at all. That is accepted as being sufficient. No need to check for context then. No need to read the whole case in its entirety when one sentence supports your argument, but there is a need to read the whole case when a handful of paragraphs destroy your argument. The problem is these people will only interpret decisions in a way that ensures they will arrive at their preconceived result.

[ArthurWankspittle]

As someone said before, Tom is simply stupid and unable to grasp even relatively simple concepts.

This ^
He obviously doesn't understand how his mortgage works and you suspect he's the sort of person who would write a cheque in an attempt to clear his overdraft. His son and daughter are no better and possibly worse. Tom is at least reasonably articulate.

Going back to point 91. I suspect the judge would prefer to hear £a arrears which is b months of arrears at the date of the issue of the application and £x arrears which is y months of arrears at the time of the hearing. Someone at B&B saying "computer says no" isn't ideal but is hardly fraud.

[vampireLOREN]

Video Tom Crawford Success At Court 14 04 2015

While Tom and family were at court, a group of about 25 guarded the house. With all these visitors, the bin lorry couldn't get up the cul-de-sac, so the mob helpfully wheeled the bins down the hill and up again.

15m 0s: Tom arrives back from court. He doesn't have his glasses and has problems reading the verdict. He is confused about whether he has permission to appeal. [He doesn't.] The suspension of the warrant of possession has been lifted. Ah, that's what it says but not what it means. He has permission to appeal. But he also doesn't have permission to appeal, and that is because there is nothing to appeal, which is because the claim for possession was a fraudulent document. Paragraph 91 of the judgement [which I suspect was the only para that was in any way in Tom's favour]: "Here, Mr Crawford has a point..." with the dry witticism about computers. Fraud from the outset makes everything void so there was no [valid] possession order so there is nothing to appeal against.

The result couldn't have been better. He thanked the judge for having done a great service. At that, gobsmacked jaws dropped throughout the court staff.

Yes, he has been taking advice from the Mr Ebert, who has been "absolutely brilliant".

It's a great day. Now Tom can start proceedings against them. Is his house totally safe now? Well, Tom isn't sure. He is dealing with criminals, so you never know.

[I am slightly relieved that Tom isn't sure his house is safe. This means that the next action taken against him, which I think will be a notice of possession, won't come as a total surprise. Meanwhile, bouyed by his total misunderstanding of this failure, Tom will probably appeal against the refusal of permission to appeal, perhaps taking it to Europe or somewhere silly.]

Now here is an excellent ploy for the wicked Bailiffs arrive on bin day, and while the supporters roll the bins down to the cart rush up and seize house.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Out the front door come two of them carrying a couch. Tom Crawford is seated on the couch, loudly humming "Pomp and Circumstance".

I visualise it differently. I see Tom on the couch singing a song accompanied by his wife on the paper and comb. Our ears are blessed by a beautiful rendition of Tom's lament:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7I_6J7_HGHc

[wanglepin]

Video Tom Crawford Success At Court 14 04 2015
This means that the next action taken against him, which I think will be a notice of possession, won't come as a total surprise. Meanwhile, bouyed by his total misunderstanding of this failure, Tom will probably appeal against the refusal of permission to appeal, perhaps taking it to Europe or somewhere silly.]

This really is sad. Anyone can see the confusion Tom is suffering from. He even says a few times what it is that “ some people think" it ( the judge’s decision) means.
This is the kind mental suffering that has come about because of the mind games people like Roger Hayes, Brian Gerrish, and Mark Haining Ceylon have played with minds of ill and or desperate people like Mr & Mrs Crawford.
Tom has no doubt lost the case. None of the talks he has been giving has made the slightest bit of difference. These parasites in particular Mark Haining Ceylon, Brian Gerrish, Roger Hayes had burrowed their beliefs so deep in his mind like a maggots to a carcass that he was so convinced that what they were feeding him just had to be true, not realizing that they were feeding off him.

Tom,
you were used by monsters who have taken advantage of you and your desperate situation. You were easy pickings for them, they love people like you only while you are useful to them. They have exploited you and your wife and perpetuated through lies and deceit, your desperate situation and desperate suffering. They preyed on your fears and have all this time given you a false hope that everything will be ok when they have known all along that your case was hopeless. You were ‘ just the type of man they were looking for’.
Your suffering only ever went to serve their purposes; it was never to serve you. These people don’t care what is or is not law or what is or is not justice, Tom, these disgruntled self-serving status seekers who have an axe to grind with any authority, make up their own law and justice to serve their purpose, it was never your purpose that they deceived you into believing they were serving.
They will never admit to being wrong and sit of the fence and watch while the desperate and needy burn for their cause, not yours.
Just look at this fence sitter, Tom. A man asks over on getoutofdebtfree,

Wooden head » Thu May 14, 2015 11:35 pm
So Tom won't lose his home then SalliNae ?

this reply

by SalliNae » Fri May 15, 2015 12:56 am
Why on earth would you ask a question like that? I have not had sight of the judgment. Tom and Guy have. I repeat. If they are happy, so am I.

I hardly think success would be reported by Tom, whose home is at stake, and who has had sight of the judgment in full, if it was anything other than a success.

Most people who take the video of Tom and Guy at face value are absolutely delighted at the result. 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.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VWSYTTF98E
This is from a platinum starred moderator of a forum that claims to get people out of debt,free! And a forum that has done nothing but crow what a success you have had in court. But do you notice that this moderator will not commit herself to a simple yes or no answer even after the many celebratory claims of your victory and celebratory congratulations on your “win”? ask yourself this simple question Tom, why won't she answer the question?
I will answer that man's question Tom, it is no, Tom won’t be keep his house.And I am sorry about that.

[rumpelstilzchen]

One question I would like to ask. Have we ever seen any evidence of Ceylon practicing what he preaches? Have we seen him relating his own stories about how he does not pay for gas, electricity and water? His court cases? Liability orders?

[wanglepin]

One question I would like to ask. Have we ever seen any evidence of Ceylon practicing what he preaches? Have we seen him relating his own stories about how he does not pay for gas, electricity and water? His court cases? Liability orders?

Parasites feed of others rumple, usually when they are asleep.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Parasites feed of others rumple, usually when they are asleep.

True. But I cannot recall reading any posts made by Ceylon where he describes his own fight with utility companies or the council or HMRC. Does he own his own home? Is he paying a mortgage, council tax? Does he work and pay tax or does he claim benefits? Does anyone know? How does he fund his lifestyle and does he do what his website advises other people to do?

[slowsmile]

One question I would like to ask. Have we ever seen any evidence of Ceylon practicing what he preaches? Have we seen him relating his own stories about how he does not pay for gas, electricity and water? His court cases? Liability orders?

Once - briefly - the last post on what appears to be the very first A4V thread on GOODF.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VW0IrlViko

Not exactly practicing what he preaches - rather saying (ie lying) that he does.

[PeanutGallery]

Ceylons made claims that he doesn't pay council tax or water rates or things like that, but without having sight of his finances we can't say for certain if he does or not. I suspect he doesn't practice what he preaches he strikes me as a keyboard warrior the type who'll pipe up with what he'd wish he had the balls to do. I did try to wade through a few sub-forums on GOODF to see if I could find a link, but came up empty, that's not to say one isn't their. (Edit: Wanglepin has found what I could not, well done that man).

In regard to Tom and the verdict, I'm amazed at the cognitive dissonance, they know that Bradford and Bingley didn't apply for costs, here's a clue it's been a standard practice of law that the loser bears the victors costs (as their actions meant the case was heard) Tom wasn't offered costs by the court. That alone should tell any person with even the most basic understanding of how a court works that he didn't win. Well that and the verdict saying you don't have an arguable case for an appeal and permission is denied.

I would struggle to understand the fact that the sov's have accepted Tom's victory, even in the sight of the Judgement, the reporting and the fact that UKAR have issued a statement saying they had a valid possession order and would be enforcing it, if it weren't for the story of the Emperors New Clothes. The GOOF's are just believing what they want to believe and what they are told to believe, for all their claim to love 'free' thinking they are remarkably close minded. They will accept Tom's victory because it means they get to feel personally vindicated and will happily overlook the evidence in opposition.

The only question is, when reality bites in will Tom still think his hat is lucky?

[rumpelstilzchen]

I think that Tom and his supporters will believe he won until their dying day. When Tom is evicted they will say those that are evicting him are acting unlawfully. Well, more likely fraudulently. They will say that the banks are so powerful they are able to ignore the courts. To them it will be more evidence of fraudulent behaviour from the banks.

[slowsmile]

I think that Tom and his supporters will believe he won until their dying day. When Tom is evicted they will say those that are evicting him are acting unlawfully. Well, more likely fraudulently. They will say that the banks are so powerful they are able to ignore the courts. To them it will be more evidence of fraudulent behaviour from the banks.

Some will believe it although I'm sure others (eg Ceylon) know he lost but will spin the above story for their own ends.

I suspect this tactic was pushed at the meeting in the pub on Wednesday night.

[Normal Wisdom]

I have a guy on YouTube comments telling me that Tom will be raising his own criminal prosecutions in respect of the fraud and perjury that preceded the hearing. He seems to think that the result of the hearing is immaterial (I think). I've asked him if this means that Tom will need to seek a suspension of any new attempt to enforce the Order of Possession.

Elsewhere I have seen people saying that Tom should raise criminal prosecutions because his win at yesterdays hearing proved fraud and perjury have taken place.

Now that I've typed this it seems so stupid that I wonder why I bothered.