10. Enter goofers Mark Haining Ceylon, Taylor and Ebert.
“On April 15th 2013 Mr and Mrs Crawford sought to appeal the order of 19th December 2012 and 27th March on the grounds that the original claim form had not been sealed by the court, that there was no wet signature on the statement of truth generated through PCOL online system and that a solicitor was not entitled to sign on behalf of Bradford & Bingley. On 9th May 2013 I refused permission to appeal on paper with reasons. No renewed application for permission was made.
At 93. Tom Crawford and anyone else in that courtroom should have realised that he had lost when this was stated at point 93;
That does not mean that Mr Crawford is not entitled to challenge the totality of the debt. He can still do so when an account is taken of how monies are to be paid following the sale of the property.
wanglepin wrote:10. Enter goofers Mark Haining Ceylon, Taylor and Ebert.
“On April 15th 2013 Mr and Mrs Crawford sought to appeal the order of 19th December 2012 and 27th March on the grounds that the original claim form had not been sealed by the court, that there was no wet signature on the statement of truth generated through PCOL online system and that a solicitor was not entitled to sign on behalf of Bradford & Bingley. On 9th May 2013 I refused permission to appeal on paper with reasons. No renewed application for permission was made.
I was just going to post that. looks like Tommy Boy has been into the woo for a couple of years now. You can't fix stupid.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
wanglepin wrote:10. Enter goofers Mark Haining Ceylon, Taylor and Ebert.
“On April 15th 2013 Mr and Mrs Crawford sought to appeal the order of 19th December 2012 and 27th March on the grounds that the original claim form had not been sealed by the court, that there was no wet signature on the statement of truth generated through PCOL online system and that a solicitor was not entitled to sign on behalf of Bradford & Bingley. On 9th May 2013 I refused permission to appeal on paper with reasons. No renewed application for permission was made.
I was just going to post that. looks like Tommy Boy has been into the woo for a couple of years now. You can't fix stupid.
I'm surprised they never played the 'money isn't real' card, it's just generated on a screen so it never existed, so how can we pay it back? lol I'm gobsmacked that's missing I really am.
PaidShill wrote:The sad part about this whole affair, is that Tom would have had enough equity in his home to do something legal to save it. Instead, he listens to you cretins, and takes the bank to task, racking up untold legal fees, the net result, he will be homeless and penniless thanks to you.
I wonder how long that will survive on the GOOFyBoard?
Gone already = strange how the "truthers" are very quick to delete the truth before the lemmings read it and find out how Ceylon and others sold Tom a pup of an argument
Can't wait for Ceylon's next video all about how he helped and supported Tom. Well now as Kirk (is Ceylon a star trek fan too ?) no longer lives at home, Ceylon can continue to support Tom by letting him move in
Last edited by Bones on Mon May 18, 2015 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1) The pattern of arrears began long before Tom contracted cancer.
2) The exact calculation of the arrears at the point the Order of Possession was granted is immaterial as there is no dispute that they owed more than 2 months interest and had not paid anything for at least 5 months. As explained in the subsequent paragraphs -para. 91 is a complete red herring as far as the legitimacy of the claim goes.
3) It had crossed my mind that Tom thought that the mention of the "annual insurance premium" in the calculation of the amount to be paid to B&B referred to the endowment premium when of course it actually meant the mandatory building insurance. I thought this might explain why Tom was under the impression that the sum he was paying B&B covered both the loan and the endowment policy premium. However, this is undermined by the evidence from Royal London that endowment policy premiums were paid by Mrs Crawford for the best part of the first three years of the loan period and then the policy was surrendered and cashed up into the mortgage account.
4) The barrister for for UKAR (B&B) was clever to encourage the judge to allow permission to appeal "out of time". As a denial of this request can be subject to appeal. Denial of permission to appeal on the facts of the case cannot and the barrister was rightly confident that the case would fail on the merit of the arguments that Tom put forward. The down side is that it lead to the slightly arcane judgement which appears to be both allowing and refusing the same question and results in the self serving interpretation that Tom's arguments had sufficient merit for an appeal to be allowed but was denied because actually the appeal was unnecessary.
“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:
I'm surprised they never played the 'money isn't real' card, it's just generated on a screen so it never existed, so how can we pay it back? lol I'm gobsmacked that's missing I really am.
Johnny, it's definitely been discussed by Tom etc but perhaps Ebert isn't a fan of this argument. There's still time though.
This is Tom's first question about the issue on GOODF and he was already well down the road to swallowing the whole FoTL crap at this stage.
Last edited by Normal Wisdom on Mon May 18, 2015 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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.'”
I am still scratching my head over all the cases cited by Tom Crawford. He seemed to rely on these cases as some kind of a supporting of his arguments.... but they were written in "legalese".
JonnyL wrote:
I'm surprised they never played the 'money isn't real' card, it's just generated on a screen so it never existed, so how can we pay it back? lol I'm gobsmacked that's missing I really am.
Johnny, it's definitely been discussed by Tom etc but perhaps Ebert isn't a fan of this argument. There's still time though.
This is Tom's first question about the issue on GOODF and he was already well down the road to swallowing the whole FoTL crap at this stage.
PaidShill wrote:The sad part about this whole affair, is that Tom would have had enough equity in his home to do something legal to save it. Instead, he listens to you cretins, and takes the bank to task, racking up untold legal fees, the net result, he will be homeless and penniless thanks to you.
I wonder how long that will survive on the GOOFyBoard?
Gone already = strange how the "truthers" are very quick to delete the truth before the lemmings read it and find out how Ceylon and others sold Tom a pup of an argument
Some naughty soul has created a GOOFy user account and re-posted the link all over the board. I think they're going to find it impossible to stop their members seeing this judgement, especially if a few people keep re-posting it as fast as they take it down.
They're getting the "you can't censor the internet" treatment, and they don't like being on the receiving end....
Last edited by Hercule Parrot on Mon May 18, 2015 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
I'm fascinated by the angle that Tom has paid or promised to pay Goodf, O'Bernica or Taylor for their legal advice. If they were operating on some sort of no win no fee basis that explains the huge vested interest in selling this to Tom as a win.
I've always been suspicious that various gurus have a under the table business in giving legal advice. I know Habeus used to charge £2000 for Mackenzie friending (not a bad racket considering counsel are only around £200 ph).
I remember when I was on goodf I got approached a number of times with people offering me money for advice or letters (I refused every time and encouraged donations to charity). Lots of money to be made from people who are desperate, credulous and have a history of poor financial decisions.
tm169 wrote:I'm fascinated by the angle that Tom has paid or promised to pay Goodf, O'Bernica or Taylor for their legal advice. If they were operating on some sort of no win no fee basis that explains the huge vested interest in selling this to Tom as a win.
I've always been suspicious that various gurus have a under the table business in giving legal advice. I know Habeus used to charge £2000 for Mackenzie friending (not a bad racket considering counsel are only around £200 ph).
I remember when I was on goodf I got approached a number of times with people offering me money for advice or letters (I refused every time and encouraged donations to charity). Lots of money to be made from people who are desperate, credulous and have a history of poor financial decisions.
Will Guy Taylor be in Pastor Ceylon's car when they drive Tom to the cash point? I hope they film it.
Normal Wisdom wrote:
This is Tom's first question about the issue on GOODF and he was already well down the road to swallowing the whole FoTL crap at this stage.
I did mention this a while back.
Yes only a member for 4 days
Indeed he was a gold star member and had 507 posts under his belt and had only - Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:22 pm he then posted this>
Mortgage Help
by tommc » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:00 pm
tm169 wrote:I'm fascinated by the angle that Tom has paid or promised to pay Goodf, O'Bernica or Taylor for their legal advice. If they were operating on some sort of no win no fee basis that explains the huge vested interest in selling this to Tom as a win.
Your forgetting Mark Hainings` Ceylon`s cut, he would probably call it an introduction fee.
tm169 wrote:I'm fascinated by the angle that Tom has paid or promised to pay Goodf, O'Bernica or Taylor for their legal advice. If they were operating on some sort of no win no fee basis that explains the huge vested interest in selling this to Tom as a win.
I've always been suspicious that various gurus have a under the table business in giving legal advice. I know Habeus used to charge £2000 for Mackenzie friending (not a bad racket considering counsel are only around £200 ph).
I remember when I was on goodf I got approached a number of times with people offering me money for advice or letters (I refused every time and encouraged donations to charity). Lots of money to be made from people who are desperate, credulous and have a history of poor financial decisions.[/quOTE
Will Guy Taylor be in Pastor Ceylon's car when they drive Tom to the cash point? I hope they film it.
Don't forget the esteemed R.M he charges £30 ph.
If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?
tm169 wrote:I'm fascinated by the angle that Tom has paid or promised to pay Goodf, O'Bernica or Taylor for their legal advice. If they were operating on some sort of no win no fee basis that explains the huge vested interest in selling this to Tom as a win.
That would be truly despicable. Not merely destroying this man's retirement by urging him to self-martyrdom and homelessness, but actually charging him a fee for doing so.
Like offering to help a blind man across the road, walking him into the path of an oncoming bus and snatching his wallet as you leap clear. Utterly contemptible if they ask for one penny.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
wanglepin wrote:Loved point 17. Mr O` Bernicia didn't know that amicus curiae was court appointed lawyer that acted independent of both parties.
And no wonder the judge looked puzzled and the court staff jaws dropped after Tom's closing statement. I bet as the door closed they all fell over..
there are some who feel sorrow for them
Me? I think they are time wasting reprobates.
If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?
looks like Tommy Boy has been into the woo for a couple of years now. 
I think they are time wasting reprobates.