UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[JonnyL]

Yes Letissier14 has started some thread on the CA3 FB page, he's stuck his neck out there too, I'm enjoying sitting back and watching the comments! Looks like some loyal followers have tried calling in the cavalry, but even they admit it's dead in the water.

[Normal Wisdom]

Interesting intervention on GOODF from the man himself Jon Witterick although I have my doubts about his commitment to a "clear and open debate based on the facts". I suspect it's more like a three line whip to toe the party line.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VtuKqY2_zI

[Normal Wisdom]

It is a brave Letissier14 that returned to post on Goodf having apparently gone over to the 'dark side'. The manner in which his first posts were received was reminiscent of old movies when the sheriff walks into the saloon in the old West; piano music stops and all eyes are on the door. It appears that he 'took no shit' though - I have nothing but admiration for him.

He wrote this on Goodf

... Personally for peace of mind, he should take the judgment to 3 or 4 different solicitors and get their opinion and go from there, as it is all well and good someone telling you this or that, but it is not their house to lose.

That's good advice from L14. Tom could start by contacting the Nottingham Law Centre. They provide free legal advice on housing issues and would give him a clear understanding of the judgement and the risk he is running by ignoring it.

[Bones]

Hello everyone, sorry I know this was posted in the early hours but this is the first chance I have had to post about it

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 84#p386357

THE COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST FACTS BEHIND THE UNLAWFUL COURT SESSIONS ON TOM CRAWFORD'S CASE

PRESS RELEASE - in the Public Interest

Why do some goofer's feel that if they post something in capital letters it adds some form of authenticity, to what they have said - I HAVE SAID IT IN CAPITALS SO IT IS THE TRUTH

As soon as I see the word "facts" in any of their posts, I automatically know, that the last thing in the post is going to be facts and boy Elizabeth Watson, does not let me down.

6. However, with there being no Consumer Credit Agreement validly procured nor in place for the "overdraft" which was foisted upon the Crawford's, the MCOL could never stand up in Court, as any Civil claim in HMCTS requires the Law of Contract to 'prove' the case and win it, but this is impossible with there being no contract in existence for either the original 'loan' nor, indeed, for the subsequent fraudulent loan conversion into an Overdraft! Therefore, the MCOL was invalidly brought by Walker Morris solicitors - who have never complied with Part 31 Rules of Disclosure of the Court, despite being asked to do so: they, too, are in dishonour and abusing the Court process.

This person clearly has no knowledge of banking or of the law. "there being no consumer credit agreement". Of course there wasn't a consumer credit agreement. A consumer credit agreement is an agreement that is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as Tom had a first charge mortgage, it is not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - hence why there was no consumer.

The Judge confirms about disclosure, so it would appear that she hasn't read the judgement.

7. A further hallmark of fraud exists in the INVALID ISSUANCE of the MCOL, brought against the Crawfords in 2014: that of no proof of debt - the Government, under the facade of 'Bradford & Bingley' trading name back in 1990 or thereabouts, had done a mere book entry of issuing 'credit' against the Crawford's name and secured it invalidly against their asset (family home) - which denotes that the Promissory Note was not valid nor could be validated - because a charge can not be put on a property without a valid DEED, and in addition:
* the Deed has to be accompanied by a valid bi-lateral CONTRACT which must contain the Terms & Conditions of the loan within its wording in one document and executed in front of them at the 'exchange of contracts stage'.
* the Deed must also bear two independent witness signatures, and the original of this along with the original Contract, forms the original Promissory Note. Without these things all in place, no valid transaction has taken place.
* The above is the Law and is mandatory under the Law of Property (Misc Provisions) 1989 Act, Sections 1 & 2.

Elizabeth now resorts to just making things up now. A mortgage deed does not need to bear two independent witness signatures.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/1

by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or

For the benefit of Elizabeth, it says a witness, not two.

The rest what she has posted is equally the nonsense of an idiot.

I find it funny that the goofer's lap it all up and make comments such as

"Thanks for the excellent post..."
"Perhaps the best post i have read to date ,"
"Wow Great post."
"One of the most eloquent accounts of Tom's case I have had the honour to read. Thank you for posting"
"Great post, and I have to say quite an impressive first post from a member of 4 years!"
"Wow, amazing post, thank you so much for sharing."
"Thank you, what an excellent piece of writing and explanation, of a very complex issue "

Goofer's it is made up rubbish

[longdog]

Ah... Good old Elizabeth of the Family Watson who managed to get herself jailed through the (in)judicious use of the freeman woo.

The same E of the FW who claimed to have been freed by the judge because he was afraid of being jailed himself for treason rather than the alternative version of events where after 9 day in the clink she had to engage a real lawyer and grovellingly apologise and throw herself on the mercy of the court to get the rest of the sentence suspended.

That woman has been handed her arse on a plate over on YouToob so many times she must have best stocked crockery cupboard in christendom.

ETA... Court judgement on E of the FW purging her contempt...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/2376.html

[Hercule Parrot]

Craig Crawford says.... 'He contradicts himself allllll the way through, he's just worded it VERY cleverly... I didn't think it sounded like we'd won.. Until I spoke to many people who understand legalese and some of the same people I trust.. Who've had similar outcomes in cases where the judge is trying to save face.. Actually won too. Just didn't look like they did'

Craig Crawford says... 'Reading that in plain English isn't the key.. bare that in mind too... What we need to do is have a video recording/presentation to explain it all... So people can understand, rather than make poor interpretations by the way things are worded!'


Andy Pears who's been their staunchest of supporters has seen it for what it is, there's fallout on the eviction fraud of the bank page, he's even asking for his petrol money back!

Link, please! Don't keep all the fun to yourself, Jonny...

[daltontrumbno]

Either she has miraculously decided to slowly pull herself out of the rabbit hole or her FB account has been hacked. But Hannah Shotbolt has made a post on the Eviction Fraud Facebook page and she agrees with the court and comes very close to calling Tom a complete lier. My money is on hacked account.

[guilty]

Either she has miraculously decided to slowly pull herself out of the rabbit hole or her FB account has been hacked. But Hannah Shotbolt has made a post on the Eviction Fraud Facebook page and she agrees with the court and comes very close to calling Tom a complete lier. My money is on hacked account.

Already deleted by order of Amanda.

[JonnyL]

Craig Crawford says.... 'He contradicts himself allllll the way through, he's just worded it VERY cleverly... I didn't think it sounded like we'd won.. Until I spoke to many people who understand legalese and some of the same people I trust.. Who've had similar outcomes in cases where the judge is trying to save face.. Actually won too. Just didn't look like they did'

Craig Crawford says... 'Reading that in plain English isn't the key.. bare that in mind too... What we need to do is have a video recording/presentation to explain it all... So people can understand, rather than make poor interpretations by the way things are worded!'


Andy Pears who's been their staunchest of supporters has seen it for what it is, there's fallout on the eviction fraud of the bank page, he's even asking for his petrol money back!

scroll to find Andy Pears post https://www.facebook.com/groups/5311314 ... 6/?fref=ts

Link, please! Don't keep all the fun to yourself, Jonny...

[JonnyL]

Either she has miraculously decided to slowly pull herself out of the rabbit hole or her FB account has been hacked. But Hannah Shotbolt has made a post on the Eviction Fraud Facebook page and she agrees with the court and comes very close to calling Tom a complete lier. My money is on hacked account.

Already deleted by order of Amanda.

she's deffo not been hacked.

Here's her comment from her timeline

'I've read the court judgement from Tom crawfords eviction today (found here) https://infotomb.com/cixyk.pdf and the family's claims that they've won the case are completely without merit. The judge gave permission to appeal two and a half years out of date but refused the appeal. The suspension on the possession order issued in January has been lifted which means it's valid until the middle of June. The bank did not change the mortgage agreement without consent as tom claimed in his videos and this was evidenced with a transaction of £178. Something credited to Mrs crawfords account when she cancelled and cashed in the policy. It very clearly states that both parties agree that no change was made to the mortgage agreement and so toms claim that it was were false. The bank made not one but two attempts to offer them a repayment mortgage which would have meant they were actually paying it off and both times the Crawfords refused. Another point is why did tom not mention that there was an attempt at repossession in 2006?? He paid the arrears and no repossession was made. It's dodgy as fuck in my opinion'

[littleFred]

My favourite junk from Elizabeth Watson's post is in point 8:

It is also questionable whether there has been any compliance at all with the Bill of Exchange Act 1882, which requires that any charge placed on a property via a valid Deed, must have received 'consideration' and a fair exchange (something of value for something of value).

BoE 1882 says nothing about charges on properties, deeds or consideration in contracts.

GOOFers praise the post, not for its accuracy, but for adherence to the party line. It gets bonus points for pseudo-legal claptrap.

[vampireLOREN]

Either she has miraculously decided to slowly pull herself out of the rabbit hole or her FB account has been hacked. But Hannah Shotbolt has made a post on the Eviction Fraud Facebook page and she agrees with the court and comes very close to calling Tom a complete lier. My money is on hacked account.

Already deleted by order of Amanda.

she's deffo not been hacked.

Here's her comment from her timeline

'I've read the court judgement from Tom crawfords eviction today (found here) https://infotomb.com/cixyk.pdf and the family's claims that they've won the case are completely without merit. The judge gave permission to appeal two and a half years out of date but refused the appeal. The suspension on the possession order issued in January has been lifted which means it's valid until the middle of June. The bank did not change the mortgage agreement without consent as tom claimed in his videos and this was evidenced with a transaction of £178. Something credited to Mrs crawfords account when she cancelled and cashed in the policy. It very clearly states that both parties agree that no change was made to the mortgage agreement and so toms claim that it was were false. The bank made not one but two attempts to offer them a repayment mortgage which would have meant they were actually paying it off and both times the Crawfords refused. Another point is why did tom not mention that there was an attempt at repossession in 2006?? He paid the arrears and no repossession was made. It's dodgy as fuck in my opinion'

Maybe there is hope? yeah but, no but, knowwotImean?

[wanglepin]

More bilge from sycophant Salli

by SalliNae » Tue May 19, 2015 8:25 pm

Can someone who was attendance confirm whether the Judge was robed....in Court dress. I vaguely recall someone saying he wasn't but would love confirmation.

WT... I see, I got it! ,(1) So the Judge was not dressed in robes this then means Tom Crawford loses his home but won his case.
(2)The Judge was dressed in his robes so this lawfully means Tom Crawford won his case but will lose his home. Yes Syco Salli, I see the difference in what you're saying.

[JonnyL]

More bilge from sycophant Salli

by SalliNae » Tue May 19, 2015 8:25 pm

Can someone who was attendance confirm whether the Judge was robed....in Court dress. I vaguely recall someone saying he wasn't but would love confirmation.

WT... I see, I got it! ,(1) So the Judge was not dressed in robes this then means Tom Crawford loses his home but won his case.
(2)The Judge was dressed in his robes so this lawfully means Tom Crawford won his case but will lose his home. Yes Syco Salli, I see the difference in what you're saying.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! This is getting insane

[Hercule Parrot]

It is a brave Letissier14 that returned to post on Goodf having apparently gone over to the 'dark side'. The manner in which his first posts were received was reminiscent of old movies when the sheriff walks into the saloon in the old West; piano music stops and all eyes are on the door. It appears that he 'took no shit' though - I have nothing but admiration for him.

He wrote this on Goodf

... Personally for peace of mind, he should take the judgment to 3 or 4 different solicitors and get their opinion and go from there, as it is all well and good someone telling you this or that, but it is not their house to lose.

That's good advice from L14. Tom could start by contacting the Nottingham Law Centre. They provide free legal advice on housing issues and would give him a clear understanding of the judgement and the risk he is running by ignoring it.

I agree with all of above. Well done Let14, who has expressed his views with balance and dignity in various places. His advice is also good. Andy Pears has tried to say something similar on the TC FB (link previously provided by Jonny), urging TC to get legal help before the bailiffs arrive.

Sadly the hard-core are now urging TC and family into a frenzy of self-perceived glorious victory. One idiot (John Dow, no surprise) even said that the bailiffs won't dare to come because "the Police will arrest them for trespass because it is now well broadcast that the case was dismissed".

[Hercule Parrot]

More bilge from sycophant Salli

by SalliNae » Tue May 19, 2015 8:25 pm
Can someone who was attendance confirm whether the Judge was robed....in Court dress. I vaguely recall someone saying he wasn't but would love confirmation.

Clutching at straws now. What the judge was wearing wouldn't make any difference to the authority of his judgement. Reminds me of an old UK bar-room lawyer myth that a constable can't arrest you if he isn't wearing his official hat.

It's sad, really. I think a lot of the GOOFy / TC supporters had a genuine sentimental investment in his story. They wanted him to succeed, because he seems to be a decent old chap (if you don't think about his previous conduct of this dispute). They're hurting now, as the truth emerges, and I can't find it in me to mock them. Naive kindness isn't a bad thing.

My contempt is reserved for those who knew full well that TC could not win, and nonetheless urged him into self-martrydom in order to cynically advance their own greed.

[JonnyL]

You can tell people have been on the Chardonnay, really hotting up now, the crawfords have been remarkably quiet today, just waiting for one of them to break ranks and flip the switch... hell could be cut loose! And.... they're still planning to march to Nottingham market on saturday to protest against the Nottingham Posts' version of the judgement!!!

[Bones]

More bilge from sycophant Salli

by SalliNae » Tue May 19, 2015 8:25 pm

Can someone who was attendance confirm whether the Judge was robed....in Court dress. I vaguely recall someone saying he wasn't but would love confirmation.

WT... I see, I got it! ,(1) So the Judge was not dressed in robes this then means Tom Crawford loses his home but won his case.
(2)The Judge was dressed in his robes so this lawfully means Tom Crawford won his case but will lose his home. Yes Syco Salli, I see the difference in what you're saying.

Tom's house is saved because the Judge was not wearing matching socks

Might be a good time to list the people Tom called for help. Call it a rogue's gallery if you will for people that aren't familiar with Tom's legal experts

Let's start with

[*]Michael of Bernicia, aka Michael Waugh,



Details of his lack of success can be found in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10334
The judge said:
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.

[*]Guy Taylor



Details of his previous stay at her majesty's pleasure and overal lack of any success can be found in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10234

[*]Mr Ebert



Details of the cases he has lost can be found in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10323

[*]Mark "Ceylon" Haining [/b]



Not sure he has had any success in ever doing anything in life. His failure in life can be read here
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10301

With these legal beagles helping and supporting him, is it any wonder that he lost so completely

[BlueBurmese]

Hello all

I've been lurking on the forum a while now watching how this case and the WeRe Bank one have panned out. It has been enlightening finding out what was really behind the "bank attempts to steal house from man with cancer" story. Two sides and all that...

Difficult to add much to what has already been posted but just a few points:

*It seems clear that Tom (and perhaps the rest of his family, I'll come to that in a minute) is pretty bad with money. There's a long history of arrears on the mortgage account and I suspect that the offer of a repayment mortgage was turned down because he simply couldn't afford it. He was (is?) self-employed as a carpet fitter as I understand. Work that I doubt was highly paid nor was guaranteed. It does make you wonder why he's stuck it out if he couldn't make ends meet. Does anyone know if his wife worked also?

*He was paying £302.55 a month on a £41,800 interest only plus £5,000 capital and interest mortgage. That looks a bit steep to me and would indicate an interest rate of between 5% and 5.5%. There are far better deals out there and failing that, surely B&B could have moved him on to something cheaper?

*The son, Craig, describes himself as CEO of Paramount Profits, a marketing company. It's not actually clear what it does although it appears to be some sort of affiliate marketing scheme. The website design and text are boilerplate stuff and have the whiff of a get-rich-quick scheme. I have serious doubts that the profits from that bought the Audit with personalised number plates that he proudly displays on Facebook.

Overall, Tom is going to lose his house in the next month or so. Personally, I'd rather he didn't but it's clear that he hasn't got a trusted friend to shake some sense into him and get him to renegotiate with B&B, and even if he had, I doubt he'd listen.

[vampireLOREN]

More bilge from sycophant Salli

by SalliNae » Tue May 19, 2015 8:25 pm

Can someone who was attendance confirm whether the Judge was robed....in Court dress. I vaguely recall someone saying he wasn't but would love confirmation.

WT... I see, I got it! ,(1) So the Judge was not dressed in robes this then means Tom Crawford loses his home but won his case.
(2)The Judge was dressed in his robes so this lawfully means Tom Crawford won his case but will lose his home. Yes Syco Salli, I see the difference in what you're saying.

Tom's house is saved because the Judge was not wearing matching socks

Might be a good time to list the people Tom called for help. Call it a rogue's gallery if you will for people that aren't familiar with Tom's legal experts

Let's start with

[*]Michael of Bernicia, aka Michael Waugh,



Details of his lack of success can be found in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10334
The judge said:
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.

[*]Guy Taylor



Details of his previous stay at her majesty's pleasure and overal lack of any success can be found in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10234

[*]Mr Ebert



Details of the cases he has lost can be found in this thread

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10323

[*]Mark "Ceylon" Haining [/b]



Not sure he has had any success in ever doing anything in life. His failure in life can be read here
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10301

With these legal beagles helping and supporting him, is it any wonder that he lost so completely

Bones that is Wonderful