UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[rumpelstilzchen]

If Tom does start paying you can bet your bottom dollar that info will not be made public. Team GOOF will want it to appear as though Tom beat them and kept the house.

[ArthurWankspittle]

No. B&B aren't in the business of owning property, they are lenders. They can repossess this house, sell it at auction and have all their money by the end of this year. None of your suggestions come close.

Tom can trade other valuable things, it doesn't have to be cash today. He can trade a stake in the proceeds of sale when the house is eventually sold, he can trade a quiet and dignified settlement which ends the stress for everyone. He has a weak hand of cards, but they can be played nonetheless.

I'll bet that if people went into a quiet room with a whiteboard and talked constructively, a deal would be done somehow -

# Tom could sell his interest in the house to the bank for £80k. He has enough for a nice flat or smaller house, and the bank can resell the house for £130k to recover their losses. B&B aren't landlords. He could have sold anytime.

# Tom's debt could be converted to a charge upon eventual sale, so that it is recovered from his estate in 20 years or so. Interest at the rate of RPI inflation, so nobody wins or loses during the waiting period. as above

# Tom could resume payments for a while - he's not too old to work, and if the bank agrees to freeze interest he could reduce the debt by quite a bit. No chance. He was a carpet fitter, he is 64 and gets a state pension next year (IIRC). That will be his only income.

# Tom agrees to front a series of videos and adverts, encouraging financial responsibility and telling people not to fall into the same traps as he did. He becomes a youtube star for the right reasons. He is generously paid, by deduction from capital owed. He's not Grumpy Cat.

# A member of Tom's family (his son or daughter perhaps) could become a co-signatory to an extended loan period. By contributing £10-20k now, they ensure they have a larger inheritance in future. Why haven't they done this already if they could? Why accept £40k now when you can have everything by the end of the year?

There are loads of ways that a face-saving arrangement could be made. Do they need to? They are one of the banks the government bailed out. Great. Renege on your mortgage and stiff the taxpayers. No chance - they need all the money they can get, asap. Bad publicity for what? A firm that doesn't do mortgages any more. The government? Only trying to get their money back. The bank would go for this, as long as they got most of their money and the public image win. Tom would go for it, if it meant he could stop worrying. The only people who would be determined to prevent this would be the GOOFy's. And they will keep the pressure on TC to make sure he martyrs himself.

[ArthurWankspittle]

How about B&B accept a reduced amount of £30k (I suspect they've sold a complicated product to Tom knowing he didn't fully understand the ins-and-outs) and just leave it as a charge on the property to be recovered later?

No way. See my other answer, they can get all the money back this year. It wasn't a complicated product, it was an IO mortgage with an endowment from somewhere. If Tom can't understand this, he shouldn't have any credit without being supervised by an adult.

[wanglepin]

If you don't mind I would rather stick to the subject of TC rather than GOODF. However, I am not going to talk badly about GOODF as they really did help more than you can imagine...... I am happy to talk about most subjects, but don't really want to discuss the internal workings of GOODF,

That's fine, but I can't help wonder why you would still support blatant lies,proven blatant liars and conmen.It Is not as if the "successes" over on goodf outweigh the failures brought about by people such as Ceylon Mark Haining, Roger Hayes, Brian Gerrish, Taylor and Ebert, is it? And Mark Haining won't even confirm if he has joined the WeRe bank he is so heavily promoting or had any of his WeRE cheques cleared .

[letissier14]

That's fine, but I can't help wonder why you would still support blatant lies,proven blatant liars and conmen.It Is not as if the "successes" over on goodf outweigh the failures brought about by people such as Ceylon Mark Haining, Roger Hayes, Brian Gerrish, Taylor and Ebert, is it? And Mark Haining won't even confirm if he has joined the WeRe bank he is so heavily promoting or had any of his WeRE cheques cleared .

As I already said they helped me out at a time that I needed help and I will always be thankful for that. I also stated that I don't agree with everything that is written on GOODF.

However I am well aware of the large number of successful cases on GOODF and have personally helped many people myself.

What others on GOODF or any other site choose to do is their business, and whether it be right or wrong, everyone is entitled to follow their own path. I personally like to follow my own path, once I have established all the facts as best as I can.

I think you need to remember that many people are in such dire financial circumstances, often not of their own making, and sites like GOODF really have helped them.

I appreciate your dislike for the named individuals and can understand where you are coming from, but in general GOODF has helped far more people then you give it credit for.

Anyway, I'm not here to abuse anyone or to take sides.

[littleFred]

To me, that is the tragedy of GOODF. Some people there do know what they are talking about and do give sensible advice. Some people weirdly give good advice in some areas and blatant lies in other areas. And some people are bat-shit crazy.

A self-help group of people who are in difficulties, giving each other moral support and guidance and advice, that's a good thing. When good advice helps people, that's good.

But GOODF has been almost entirely taken over by the crazies and the greedy. Some people there want to tear the system down and will trample on anyone if it helps achieve their objective. Tom has fallen into the clutches of such people who have persuaded him that black is white. This is harmful to Tom.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tom has fallen into the clutches of such people who have persuaded him that black is white. This is harmful to Tom.

But it is not only Tom. It is also his wife, his son and his daughter. I cannot believe four members of one family would fall for the bullshit at the same time. There must have been something there before they met the GOOFs.

[littleFred]

I've seen only brief videos or writing by the others in Tom's family. I get the impression that Sue would go along with anything Tom says. Craig seems interesting. Big soft-top Audi with personalised number plates: someone has some money. Going by Craig Crawford Talks About Todays VICTORY, Craig has simply bought into the exact same black-is-white junk that Tom believes.

I hesitate to comment on characters I know nothing about. But I will say that Toms seems unsophisticated, trusting and optimistic. I doubt he ever understood his endowment mortgage and endowment assurance policy; he just trusted it would all work out fine in the end. Just as he now trusts his "advisers" that it will all turn out fine. Characteristics such as these tend to run in families, for various reasons.

[Hercule Parrot]

That's fine, but I can't help wonder why you would still support blatant lies,proven blatant liars and conmen...

As I already said they helped me out at a time that I needed help and I will always be thankful for that. I also stated that I don't agree with everything that is written on GOODF.

We see enough of the "you can't post here unless you agree with us" mentality over on the over side. It would be a shame if Leti or other visitors felt they were expected to denounce a list of false prophets in order to be accepted here.

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Friedrich Nietzsche

[tm169]

Hi letissier14

Thanks for joining here. I think it takes a fair amount of courage to depart from the party line on issues like this. Especially as you have been a long standing goodf member and former mod.

I note that you don't want to discuss goodf at this stage and I accept that. I think there is a still and interesting and unfinished debate to be had about the efficacy of the 3 letters which we touched upon here just before I was banned for the last (and probably 20th) time. Let us know if you want to start a new threat to discuss goodf further.

[vampireLOREN]

That's fine, but I can't help wonder why you would still support blatant lies,proven blatant liars and conmen...

As I already said they helped me out at a time that I needed help and I will always be thankful for that. I also stated that I don't agree with everything that is written on GOODF.

We see enough of the "you can't post here unless you agree with us" mentality over on the over side. It would be a shame if Leti or other visitors felt they were expected to denounce a list of false prophets in order to be accepted here.

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Bravo.

[tm169]

We see enough of the "you can't post here unless you agree with us" mentality over on the over side. It would be a shame if Leti or other visitors felt they were expected to denounce a list of false prophets in order to be accepted here.

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Agreed. Should try to be as broad a church as possible.

[wanglepin]

Hi letissier14

Thanks for joining here. I think there is a still and interesting and unfinished debate to be had about the efficacy of the 3 letters which we touched upon here just before I was banned for the last (and probably 20th) time. Let us know if you want to start a new threat to discuss goodf further.

well that is a perfect example isn't it. I note Tom Crawford waded in with his tuppence worth tm169

by tommc » Wed May 28, 2014 11:41 pm

tttmm169, learn about the only law, and that is not act's and crap's

Read and learn.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackst ... tents.html


Our country is fine with common law, but yours TTTMM169 is a la la land; a land of fear and submission.

i know you are here to cause trouble but i just laugh at your affords as you are really a sad PERSON

Tomm

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... VeBqTTF98E
This was nice from soft mannered Tommy Crawford

by tommc » Thu May 29, 2014 12:01 am

Hi all,

Something is not right with the posting count on the forum; this scumbag posting has changed, at present this PERSON posts are only 4, but some time back they read.

tttmm169
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 6:39 pm

i would recommend that no more posts of this PERSON should be replied to.

Tom

I also see our lovely aunt SalliNae takes a snap at your ankles too.I won't bother posting any of her sycophantic playing to the forum.

[Bones]

Sorry if this has been posted before but I have just come across it

http://roguemale.org/2015/05/10/tgbms-c ... itchforks/

Something caught my eye

"What had been established and agreed by all parties was the fact that there had never been any change from an endowment to a part repayment, part interest mortgage and that the Crawfords had continued to pay out, albeit on an entirely fraudulent mortgage."

But wasn't this one of the things Tom was claiming that the mortgage had been changed ?


What is said above must be correct as it is detailed in the judgement

101. The points made by Mr Crawford are either without foundation or legally misconceived. Factual assertions about changing the terms of the mortgage are misplaced: both sides agree that the mortgage terms were not changed. The legal challenges raised are misconceived and I have set out in detail above why that is so.

getting more and more confused the more I dig into this

[Hercule Parrot]

getting more and more confused the more I dig into this

I'm not sure that Tom ever really understood what sort of a mortgage he was getting. I still maintain that view, I believe he didn't realise that he would need to make two payments (one for the endowment policy and another for the mortgage) and that he thought paying the mortgage would cover both of them.

This seems most likely to me. Perhaps the endowment standing order got lost at some point, or TC cancelled it without appreciating the consequences. But he's been paying interest only on an endowment mortgage, and now the chickens have come home to roost.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Part of a post made on Facebook today by Amanda Pike:

What people who don't believe us need to fully understand is that the team of people behind the scenes helping us, are of an extremely high calibre....were not talking a bunch of riff raff that have just poled up off the street and offered help and have no idea what they are doing and we are blindly following them.
These people are AMAZING.....experts within their own fields some have written actual laws and others are the highest authority in the land for case laws we are using, forensic expert, common law experts, some having been the top trainers for the police in common law. And more! We are not fools we fully understand the document and its meaning as does walker morris and the judge. If you dont believe thats honestly okay I hand on heart mean that. because it doesn't change the outcome for us. You'll just have to wait and see but thats your choice.

Well....they have people on their team who have written "actual laws"..........plus people who are the highest authority in the land for case law........hmmmmm. I'm not too sure I believe that......

[guilty]

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 56#p385656

That's not fair! How come it's just you 4 guys that get a mention? There's more than just you.
I demand recognition!

[littleFred]

In response to:

But wasn't this one of the things Tom was claiming that the mortgage had been changed ?

The legal challenges raised are misconceived and I have set out in detail above why that is so.

This is where I'd like to see the rest of the judgement.

When Tom showed his first B&B statements to camera, he thought he was paying somehow towards the capital. But from that video, we also know the endowment assurance policy was with a different company.

97. Factually the position is now clearer. The reason that the Crawfords owed more at the end of the mortgage than they did at the beginning is that there is no longer an endowment policy which was supposed to repay the capital borrowed. However that came about, the Crawfords have known since at least 1999 that there was no means in place to repay the original capital. Mr Crawford was offered the means to repay the capital by way of a repayment mortgage but refused. That explains how we have ended up at the end of the mortgage term without repayment of capital.

Yes, Tom has talked about B&B changing the mortgage to interest plus capital repayments without Tom's consent. Tom objected, so that process was reversed.

[Bones]

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 56#p385656

That's not fair! How come it's just you 4 guys that get a mention? There's more than just you.
I demand recognition!

Is there someone I can make a complaint too, I might be new here, compared to some but I thought I deserved a mention at least

[guilty]

They don't do much research do they?

Jay Adkisson earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Oklahoma in 1988, and was a member of the Oklahoma Law Review. He has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Oklahoma (1989), Texas (1993), California (2007), Nevada (2012), Arizona (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits, and numerous federal district courts nationwide. In 23 years of practicing law, he has been in litigation and trials from Houston to Miami to Delaware to Tacoma to San Diego, and many places in between.

Jay is a member of the American Bar Association and is active in leadership in the Business Law and Real Property, Trusts and Estate (RPTE) sections.

Vice-Chair, 2012 to 2015, Committee on Financial Services and Insurance in the RPTE Section

American Bar Association Advisor, 2012-14, Uniform Laws Commission Committee on the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (formerly the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act)

American Bar Associatin Advisor, 2014-2015, Uniform Laws Commission Committee on the Uniform Series of Unincorporated Business Entities (a/k/a Uniform Series LLC Act)

Past Chair, 2012 to 2014, Committee on Captive Insurance Companies in the Business Law Section