wanglepin wrote:
Coroner: "Mr Jones was pronounced dead at the scene due to the severity of his injuries" .
Dr Ebert to family of the deceased: "This is fantastic news, this means Mr Jones is still alive"!
what he actually means is, his legal fiction has been declared dead, so the gov can cash in his birth bond now, but the real Mr of the family jones, is alive and well,
I went back to review the previous thread on Mr Ebert. Finally Tom's advice makes sense:
littleFred wrote:
Mr Ebert's overriding principles seem to be:
1. If a court decides against you, ignore it. In the alternative: if at first you don't succeed, try something even wackier.
2. If you are in a hole, keep digging.
3. Deny everything, eg:
MR EBERT: I was never convicted.
THE JUDGE: You say it’s not true but we can look up the file but I’m not going to do that today.
MR EBERT: But I can just say that I’m not convicted.
THE JUDGE: Don’t say any more. You did get convicted and you appealed against it and there was as far as you are concerned no outcome of the appeal.
MR EBERT: Correct.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
JonnyL wrote:GOODF is the tool that allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the thousands what only lunatics could believe on their own.
Not sure if I would go so far as to say, thousands. May be hundreds but looking at the number of people that actually post on that site and given the number of multiple accounts (even Ceylon has at least 4), it is more than likely we are only talking about 10's.
Maybe hundreds on there, but there's certainly a tidal wave on the facebook Beat The Bailiffs and The Banks page, GOODF was the catalyst for that page too, 28,000 members they've amassed. There's regular admin fall outs on there etc and it's full of freeman ideology, the page is an exercise in bitch control, like monkeys racing to sit at the top of the tree.
The Mr Ebert thread was excellent reading guys, I'm even more shocked to learn they've got a bankrupt analysing their court documentation.
This gets more silly with every hour that passes -
After the Nottingham Evening Post article on the outcome of Tom and Sue Crawford's court case, which was a complete misrepresentation of the facts, we intend to put the record straight. People need to know the truth!!
Please join us in Nottingham where we shall be marching peacefully from the Market Square to the Nottingham Evening Post building, armed with the facts, to demonstrate that we will not accept their misleading reports! https://www.facebook.com/events/1579887978945845/
They intend to demand that the newspaper retracts it's reportage of TC's actual defeat, and replaces it with a declaration of his historic victory. It's astonishing.
Maybe next week the UKIP party will march on City Hall and demand that their failed candidate is appointed as MP for the area? Or maybe we could demand that England is correctly recognised as having won the 2014 World Cup, after an exciting final with Italy?
This is alarmingly totalitarian - the truth will be what we say it is, or else!
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
WOW!!!! I'm lost for words! It's getting crazy now, this is just mental. I just hope Notts post finally get their teeth into the lunatics driving this agenda.
If Tom Crawford really did win why do they give a shit about how the local paper reported it? The paper can't reverse the court's decision and it certainly cannot have any effect on whether on not the B&B can seek possession. So what are they worried about? It's as if they believe that if the newspaper doesn't say Tom won it means he didn't win. If he won, he won. Irrespective of what a newspaper says. I thought these people always say that you shouldn't believe anything you read in a newspaper. So why the concern?
Last edited by rumpelstilzchen on Sun May 17, 2015 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
Tray Bay wrote:deleted Peter England from this event. what a nob lol
Kay Williamson wrote:Who is he any way he'severy was at meeting out side court
Di Gregg wrote:Is he the one promoting weRbank?
Tarquin Peabody wrote:Always sus of accs that have surnames like "England" "Angel" etc, they're usually c[redacted]s.
Garrick Black wrote:point him out ill honk the [redacted] !!!!!!! HONK!!!!!
So if Alan Peter Michael Smith turns up at the "peaceful march", he might be mistaken for the pretend Peter England, and something bad might happen to him.
I do weep when I see a picture using the anonymous mask to promote this garbage. I remember that back when anonymous was founded it was to stand against crank ideas and yet it seems to have been taken over by the cranks. I used to be proud of my limited involvement with the movement back in the day, now I am quite ashamed of it, it used to be intelligent.
As for why I think they want the Post or mainstream media to report their version of events (ie the lie) in part I think it might be related to an old freeman maxim that if you don't challenge an assertion you accept it. That and Tom has gotten his campaign into the media and they can't stand the idea that Tom might lose public sympathy if it turns out that he has more than just a touch of the crazies.
Bones wrote:Will this be any more successful than their big non event at the start of the month ?
Someone should drop a line to Nottingham Police. Looks like their Bank Holiday leave will be cancelled so they are going to be pissed off
That's a good idea. I seem to remember that T/Inspector 354 Tim Ringer is in charge of the events team at Nottingham Police and coordinated the response to the 1st May bonanza. That's presumably how they came to have more than enough officers at the doors of the court building. I'm not sure how I know that - perhaps I read it somewhere or overheard it in the pub. I'm thinking someone should tip off the Nottingham Post as well.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
It is amusing to observe the game of Chinese whispers play out. First we heard that the judge intimated that the B&B had committed fraud due to the discrepancy regarding the amount of the claim. Then we heard that counsel for B&B did not turn up to the last hearing because they knew they had committed fraud. Now, according to that retard gremlin on Icke's, the reason they did not turn up is because they were going to be arrested.
As the case Tom crawford pointed out. The B&B lawyers didn't turn up because they would of got arrested for fraud, which means in a common law land common law over rides statutes.
I cannot help but marvel how the brains of idiots such as gremlin work. I can see it now. The police were waiting in the court ready to pounce on the barrister as soon as she entered and arrest her for committing a fraudulent act. However, word got round that she had advised the court in advance that she would not be attending. How those policemen must have been frustrated knowing that another criminal had escaped their grasp and they would have to give up on their endeavour. If only she had turned up....then we could have got her.....but she's got away with it......again.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
Because the police have never ever arrested someone outside of a court room. That's not how they operate. If the barrister had committed a crime, not going to the court wouldn't be enough to avoid arrest. The barrister didn't turn up because they didn't anticipate them needing to do anything and it would have only added to Tom's bill.
The bank didn't ask for costs because of two reasons, one is that they already have a clause in the mortgage allowing them to pass the costs on to Tom. The second is that because of this clause they don't need the Judge to assess the costs, and Judges can sometimes be very stingy when making assessments of costs and reduce the bill extensively. Therefore if they ask for costs they risk getting less money than they otherwise would.
I was always told that to a barrister their first duty is to the court and then to their clients. This means it is unethical for them to advise a course of action that would involve lying to or misleading the courts (in fact if a barrister is instructed to do so by a client, they can refuse and drop the client stating to the court that they would be professionally embarrassed to continue representing that client).
But the mob will believe what they want to believe and I imagine the story will grow into hyperbole. Now the question is, given that I have nothing else to do today, should I consider contacting the Nottingham Post to fill them in with what I know about Tom Crawford and his 'friends'.
Also can we not use the word retard, I like to think they are freetards, in that their belief of freedom has made them backwards.
