UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[wanglepin]

Someone shoving to Mark Haining Ceylon and aunt salli. Can't wait for Sycophant Salli`s response

SalliNea, Ceylon this is in english, easy to understand, what pay off this is a win? Sure he can challenge the amount of arrears, but he can only do so in the accounting after the sale. And by after the sale, i mean once they have repossessed his home legally under this judgement.

92. However none of this helps Mr Crawford in relation to possession. The entitlement to possession is triggered by arrears amounting to two monthly instalments and no-one suggests that such qualifying arrears did not exist both at the time the claim was issued and on the date of the Order.

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 sale of the property.

94 It is not the totality of the debt which leads to the possession order. As set out above in paragraph 50, once there are two months arrears, Bradford & Bingley are entitled to possession. Once those two months arrears are proved the court must make a possession order. The total of the arrears is irrelevant to the making of that order.

So much for 91, when read in context, written in a way anyone can understand. Mr Ebert is wrong, ceylon is wrong, Guy is wrong, tom and family are mistaken. This is a loss.

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 listines to you cretins, and takes the bank to task, wracking up untold legal fees, the net result, he will be homeless and penneyless thanks to you. Way to go supporting him until you ruin him and his family financially.

Tom would have had options, could have saved his house, or walked away with enough for something else. You have effectively bleed him dry, way to go.

By the way, you may want to allow free debate, as that is how people learn. Banning and name calling does not add to the debate. Why the fear of discussing the law with people who actually know. We are not all corrupt
1truthseeker
New Recruit


Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 11:33 pm
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VpsaTTF98E

[JonnyL]

There are people on the 'eviction fraud of the bank' page who are facing repossession actually asking Tom's family for advice. Surely his answer should be don't do what I did.

[Losleones]

Latest vid from Ceylon:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZLqWZrD-gE

Early on a reference to crack & illiteracy were mentioned

(Arse) Crack being what Marky boy talks through & illiterate being what he is

[wanglepin]

For all his professing to know the law and legalese this must have come across as worse than a school boy error to Judge Godsmark not to mention a total embarrassment to, Taylor & Ebert. Attorneys at Law.

17. I refused the application for Mr. O` Bernicia to act as amicus as this was misconceived. An amicus is a court appointed lawyer to act independently of the parties, not on behalf of one of them. The application was then converted to have Mr. O` Bernicia act as a lay representative. That I refused not least because I recall from the 2nd February 2015 hearing that Mr. Crawford was more than able to speak up for himself. I did allow Mr. O` Bernicia to assist Mr. Crawford as a McKenzie friend. This has led at times during this hearing to Mr. Crawford effectively repeating exactly what Mr. O` Bernicia has been telling him as legal submissions (audible to us all) but that has caused me no difficulty and I record here that Mr. O` Bernicia has conducted himself with courtesy and respect for the court.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13a9 ... a29Dc/edit

[tm169]

I'd love to know if anyone was paid and if so how much.

I do however think it's an oversimplification to think that these gurus are all in it for the money. Ceylon for one clearly believes a good percentage of his own rhetoric. I'm fairly sure though that many of these people make a (modest) living off donations, seminars, web adverts and the odd fee for ad hoc legal advice or representation.

[Normal Wisdom]

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.

There you go Jonny, GOODF have deleted all the posts containing the full judgment and have retreated into the fallback position you suggested. I always knew it would be impossible to pin these guys down with the facts. I suspect many of them are more comfortable with this nonsense than in debating the details of the case anyway.

E.g from Robswift:
"... you seem to have totally missed the point that Tom Crawford was used to create the money that the banks supposedly lent him for the property.........The banks brought nothing to the table but smoke and mirrors and trunk full of devil trickery and fraud, so none of what you said holds any sway, but as a paid shill you already know this. Failure of full disclosure when the original contract was created, as well as the legal name fraud that has been committed, means once a fraud has been revealed it becomes “Nunc Pro Tunc” meaning the banks have no legal recourse."

Or from the recently resurgent Elizabeth Watson
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VrcrqY2_zI

[GH132]

Good Morning People. Well i've just woke to find that I have been removed from the "Eviction From the Bank Fraud Page" ... and Admins are firing questions at me on the Threads that I had commented on ....

These really are a despicable bunch who seek to cover up and misrepresent

[daveBeeston]

I never thought of that I just hope they don't read my post and interpret it as fact and that the Judge has written that on the documents in invisible ink...

Dave, can you get a link to the judgement onto the Nottingham Post comments?

https://infotomb.com/cixyk is a pdf version of the judgement.

Link is up on the Nottingham Post website lets see what those who support him make of it, no doubt it will be all smoke and mirrors and the accusations will flow.

[wanglepin]

I listened to Guy Taylor on Vin B's radio show last night and it was very uncomfortable to watch. Guy who admits he's a convicted fraudster looked like he'd had a right skin full, and funnily enough he slurred his way through nearly 3 hours of incoherent ramblings swilling beer both looking and sounding every bit a convicted fraudster...

Guy made it very clear that he expects payment for his time if the judgements he helps people with are successful, now this is why I believe they're still spinning Tom the lie that he won,

Do you have a link please.

[vampireLOREN]

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.

There you go Jonny, GOODF have deleted all the posts containing the full judgment and have retreated into the fallback position you suggested. I always knew it would be impossible to pin these guys down with the facts. I suspect many of them are more comfortable with this nonsense than in debating the details of the case anyway.

E.g from Robswift:
"... you seem to have totally missed the point that Tom Crawford was used to create the money that the banks supposedly lent him for the property.........The banks brought nothing to the table but smoke and mirrors and trunk full of devil trickery and fraud, so none of what you said holds any sway, but as a paid shill you already know this. Failure of full disclosure when the original contract was created, as well as the legal name fraud that has been committed, means once a fraud has been revealed it becomes “Nunc Pro Tunc” meaning the banks have no legal recourse."

Or from the recently resurgent Elizabeth Watson
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VrcrqY2_zI

Ms Watson must be an insomniac ....she posted her drivel at 2:00 am . I have rarely seen such nonsense...ever!.

[wanglepin]

There you go Jonny, GOODF have deleted all the posts containing the full judgment and have retreated into the fallback position you suggested.

So much for Sycophant Salli`s

let us wait until the full judgement has been released and let people make up their own minds

[rumpelstilzchen]

Ms Watson must be an insomniac ....she posted her drivel at 2:00 am . I have rarely seen such nonsense...ever!.

Ah yes. Elizabeth Watson. She is the lady who managed to get herself an all expenses paid trip to Holloway for contempt due to her antics in the Victoria Haigh case. I thought she had come to her senses when she purged her contempt. Not so it would appear. It is nice to see she is still heavily into the woo.

[littleFred]

... GOODF have deleted all the posts containing the full judgment ...

Not entirely true. Some remain, eg by user llllllllll. These may have been left by accident.

It is worth another plug, so I'll say again: I hope Tom's supporters read the full judgement. Shrugging it off by saying "Tom won but the judge pretended he lost" or "Tom never borrowed anything so there was no capital to repay and he should get all the interest back" is of no help whatsoever to Tom. Lying to yourselves and Tom doesn't help.

[GH132]

Ah yes. Elizabeth Watson. She is the lady who managed to get herself an all expenses paid trip to Holloway for contempt due to her antics in the Victoria Haigh case. I thought she had come to her senses when she purged her contempt. Not so it would appear. It is nice to see she is still heavily into the woo.

This was the very lady that removed me from one of the FB Groups before firing ridiculous questions at me and going off at a complete tangent

[wanglepin]

If this doesn't prove Tom Crawford was a puppet of and for the goofers I honestly do not know what will.
On point 17.

I did allow Mr O` Bernicia to assist Mr. Crawford as a McKenzie friend. This has led at times during this hearing to Mr. Crawford effectively repeating exactly what Mr. O` Bernicia has been telling him as legal submissions (audible to us all)

[wanglepin]

Ah yes. Elizabeth Watson. ......This was the very lady that removed me from one of the FB Groups before firing ridiculous questions at me and going off at a complete tangent

You lucky lucky Bstd. I usually get banned first and only after do I get asked questions.

[JonnyL]

Good Morning People. Well i've just woke to find that I have been removed from the "Eviction From the Bank Fraud Page" ... and Admins are firing questions at me on the Threads that I had commented on ....

These really are a despicable bunch who seek to cover up and misrepresent

I think the day has come where BTBATB and CA3 must show the full judgement. There's thousands on there still believing the narrative without seeing the judgement.

[JonnyL]

I listened to Guy Taylor on Vin B's radio show last night and it was very uncomfortable to watch. Guy who admits he's a convicted fraudster looked like he'd had a right skin full, and funnily enough he slurred his way through nearly 3 hours of incoherent ramblings swilling beer both looking and sounding every bit a convicted fraudster...

Guy made it very clear that he expects payment for his time if the judgements he helps people with are successful, now this is why I believe they're still spinning Tom the lie that he won,

Do you have a link please.

Here you go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGSJA3OOOuo

[tm169]

... GOODF have deleted all the posts containing the full judgment ...

Not entirely true. Some remain, eg by user llllllllll. These may have been left by accident.

This thread is still up but short of comments:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Vr2n1KkqnM

Postby llllllllll » Mon May 18, 2015 10:46 pm
Tom Crawford Full Judgement: https://infotomb.com/cixyk.

Postby letissier14 » Mon May 18, 2015 11:02 pm
Doesn't read well at all.

[Normal Wisdom]

... GOODF have deleted all the posts containing the full judgment ...

Not entirely true. Some remain, eg by user llllllllll. These may have been left by accident.

It is worth another plug, so I'll say again: I hope Tom's supporters read the full judgement. Shrugging it off by saying "Tom won but the judge pretended he lost" or "Tom never borrowed anything so there was no capital to repay and he should get all the interest back" is of no help whatsoever to Tom. Lying to yourselves and Tom doesn't help.

I missed the remaining links. I was distracted by the reappearance of "Nunc Pro Tunc" into the defensive argument. I assume this is legalese for "Yah Boo Sucks".