UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[wanglepin]

Look, if you want to spread your ignorant beliefs that Tom lost when the transcript clearly showed that he had a spectacular court victory I'll let you continue making fools of yourselves. But I'm not allowing any more vile falsehoods about Elvis being dead. .

Link please

[wanglepin]

because I want to see how the UKC covers this from now on because I have direct contact with Brian myself so will be interesting to have a chat with him about this at the UKC monthly meetings."[/i]

Brian "we only report the truth" GERRISH!!!!

[Burnaby49]

Here you go sucker, the smoking gun! The expose by the investigative journalist Gary Trudeau on August 29, 1988, well after Elvis's purported death on August 16, 1977.

[PeanutGallery]

Perhaps we should debate which is more believable, Elvis being alive or Tom winning his case?

[JonnyL]

Perhaps we should debate which is more believable, Elvis being alive or Tom winning his case?

I'm honestly convinced I'll bump into Elvis before Tom releases this video.

[Normal Wisdom]

Starting to see posts on social media and forums suggesting that Tom lied to people like Guy Taylor.

I think it needs to be clear that people like Guy, Ceylon and the other idiots were behind tom each step of the way. Guy was even on the UK column not long ago saying he had read all the documents.

So he can't say he didn't know. The guru's are just as guilty as Tom for hiding the truth here. I even suspect some are using alt accounts to start to cover themselves

Just my 2 re's worth

Personally I don't think any of the close associates can claim to have been misled by Tom and certainly not Guy. The facts of Tom's situation have largely been incidental to the proceedings as they scrabbled to conjure up reasons why Tom must triumph over the dastardly bankers, courts etc. Guy has simply used the case as a vehicle to rehearse his ridiculous ideas about court documentation and processes and to practice what he supposedly learned from Mr Ebert about forensic document analysis (for which he presumably saw some documents).

One might argue that the followers have been duped by Tom's lies but really they cannot blame him. They were determined to believe him irrespective of the actual facts of the case and at no time have I seen anybody within that group even question one aspect of what they have been told. It is satisfying that the publication of the judgement has caused them to re-evaluate and in some cases withdraw their support but to be honest the judgement is only confirming what we have, in broad terms, being saying right from the start. It was open to all Tom's supporters to think for themselves and they all, for their own reasons, chose not to.

[Normal Wisdom]

Perhaps we should debate which is more believable, Elvis being alive or Tom winning his case?

I'm honestly convinced I'll bump into Elvis before Tom releases this video.

You may be right although I was wondering today whether for greater impact I should have held onto the judgement until after the promised video was released.

[Silly Ebert]

Amanda gives us the highly articulate and intelligent Craig "live " on Bastion radio.

[JonnyL]

Perhaps we should debate which is more believable, Elvis being alive or Tom winning his case?

I'm honestly convinced I'll bump into Elvis before Tom releases this video.

You may be right although I was wondering today whether for greater impact I should have held onto the judgement until after the promised video was released.

HAHAHA! I reckon if you did hold it back that video would've been out by now... The judgement had to be released, it really did.

Anyone got a link to bastion radio? is it on youtube?

[vampireLOREN]

Amanda gives us the highly articulate and intelligent Craig "live " on Bastion radio.

https://youtu.be/DMuueNDX5a8

Not much use...lots of gaps or cuts even, well just maybe.

[noblepa]

Look, if you want to spread your ignorant beliefs that Tom lost when the transcript clearly showed that he had a spectacular court victory I'll let you continue making fools of yourselves. But I'm not allowing any more vile falsehoods about Elvis being dead. He's spent the last decade as the manager of a White Castle in Louisville Kentucky.

No, no, no. In the documentary film "Men In Black" a few years ago, Agent K made it perfectly clear that Elvis was not dead, he "just went home".

[longdog]

I prefer to believe the account of Saint Kirsty of McColl...

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

[JonnyL]

Amanda gives us the highly articulate and intelligent Craig "live " on Bastion radio.

https://youtu.be/DMuueNDX5a8

Not much use...lots of gaps or cuts even, well just maybe.

There's always a pub involved, Craig needs anger management, and what on earth are they using to broadcast the show with... a Toaster?

They really are a bunch of dopey idiots.

[Burnaby49]

Could you stop re-quoting the retard's profanity please?

I agree. The verbatim quotings of the comment go past the site's rules on unnecessary profanity. So I've deleted them except for NW's original quote which I think is acceptable in context.

My apologies, I didn't know this site and a rule about unnecessary profanity, although having said that I do try not to swear.

Profanity, for it's own sake is out. I've posted quotes as objectionable as NW's but in context, relevant to the topic under discussion. NW's quote was at least somewhat to point since it was a response to his comments abut the Hampstead Heath issue. Repeating it after that was unnecessary. It is largely at the discretion of the moderators how these issues are handled and I decided to use my god-like powers to delete the quotes but leave the postings intact.

There are few formal stated rules but just guidelines to keep things civil and at least semi-professional. The two big ones are the ban on discussions of religion and politics.

A little background for you UK contributors who weren't here for the great purge of 2012. I joined up in late 2011 and Quatloos was largely focused on its mission exposing of scams, tax fraud, sovereigns, freemen etc. We even allowed flame wars, some of which got quite vile. One contributor, in particular, seemed to post here for no other purpose than to be grossly offensive. When arguments got out of hand they were transferred to a specific section called "Flame Wars and Other Pissing Contests". Great fun I suppose, I didn't participate in them.

But it all went to hell with the 2012 American presidential election. Things just somehow blew up into one partisan acrimonious argument after another about Obama and Romney, some of it very offensive. Political squabbling overwhelmed the site and threatened to destroy Quatloos's reputation as an objective investigative source of information on it's primary goals. A lot of previous followers just stopped reading it. So Jay, the site's founder and owner, took action and had a purge. All the political postings were deleted and many contributors who participated here for no other purpose than to argue about issues irrelevant to Quatloos's purpose were banned and all their postings, on any topics, deleted. I'd say over half of the listed contributors were purged. The individual I noted above was one of them. Along with that Jay did some housekeeping and deleted the mass of casual posters who had just dabbled a few times but had contributed nothing.

Then the moderators (I wasn't one at the time) got together and set up some firm rules about allowed topics and contributor conduct to get things back on track. No flame wars, no politics, no religion are the primary ones. Topics are expected to stick to the intent of the site. In my opinion entirely beneficial. I pretty much dropped out of the site in mid 2012 because of all the pointless arguing and political ranting. None of it had anything to do with why I'd been contributing. Also offensive racial, sexual and religious comments are right out and can get you banned entirely if egregious enough.

Religion, as a general topic, is out for the same reason as politics. Again, in 2012, posters started totally pointless religious squabbles. They often got quite heated and were irrelevant to the site's purpose. However religion is an acceptable topic in the context of scams and Freemen discussion but only in respect to how religion is an integral part of the scam. If you read my Ed Belanger postings it is all about Christianity and the King James bible because these are the foundations of Belanger's ploys to entice suckers to follow his scams. I don't given my opinion of Christianity or any other religion but I discuss how Belanger uses it to manipulate people like the Volks into screwing up their lives.

One issue that has divided the moderators is the banning of certain contributors. Philosophically we are against it, the site welcomes diverse opinions. You won't get banned here for arguing in favour of scammers like Ceylon or disagreeing with other posters as long as you keep it civil. The relatively few posters who have been banned after the Great Purge were not kicked out because of their opinions but because of their conduct or because they were just trolls. Even those were the subject of much moderator discussion and warnings first.

As you can tell from my postings some laxity is allowed as long as it doesn't touch banned topics. I'm often off topic babbling on about beer or aircraft, or my recent New York trip, but just as aside, not as a primary discussion. I try to add value rather than give my opinions.

So those are the basics. As you British posters are aware we moderators take a very light hand on policing opinions and behaviour which is why many of you probably post here. I've only used my moderator powers three times, this one, a flame war I deleted, and a third deletion of postings at the poster's own requests. But I'm lurking in the background watching.

[slowsmile]

because I want to see how the UKC covers this from now on because I have direct contact with Brian myself so will be interesting to have a chat with him about this at the UKC monthly meetings."[/i]

Brian "we only report the truth" GERRISH!!!!

Brian Gerrish will still be working on how to introduce a Common Purpose angle......

[Hyrion]

What concerns me as well that (28) Tom made a complaint to the FOS in April 2013, saying that they had been paying into the endowment until 1999 and that until the endowment was found they should be treated as still making payments into the endowment.

[snip]

Now the judgment clearly states (30/31) that the endowment was surrendered in July 1992 and in fact no payment had been made on the policy since 25 June 1991 and the surrender payment of £178.75 was credited to his mortgage.

[snip]

It appears to me that because the policy was lost (in Toms opinion), Tom was clearly trying it on and saying "prove I didn't pay it"

I've seen this strategy employed by OPCA litigants in a few different ways.

prove I didn't pay it

They:

• 1) Did not bother to keep their own copies of the agreement documentation - throwing away that contract document even though the mortgage and contract is still very much alive for example

• 2) Refuse to disclose their own documentation because they know they'd be found in the wrong

.... and I'm not sure those two aspects are mutually exclusive although at initial glance it logically looks to be an either/or situation.

It's like they think:

• I never kept my documentation so the bank must not have kept theirs

bzzzzz.... wrong. While sometimes documentation gets lost in big business - don't bet on it.

I especially like Tom's logic of:

• if they can't prove I haven't paid into it then it must be assumed I've paid consistently the entire time

Simulation below:

bbbddddtttttt - here's the printed report Your Honor showing opca has not paid into it

bbbddddtttttt (best guess at the sound a printer makes) - here's the evidence by their bank that the payments were not made from their account your honor, whether debit, cheque, auto-payment or otherwise

bbbddddtttttt - here's the evidence of our own bank statements tracing all funds back to originating sources showing no payments were made

opca litigant: see they can't prove I haven't paid - they have no record of no payment

Judge: err... that's what a lack of record of payment is - proof a payment has not been made, if you made the payment you must have some proof whether bank statement, receipt, ledger record that the payment was made so no assumption is necessary

opca litigant: your corrupt and bought by them - I won't get a fair hearing - the enslavement, I'm not required to provide evidence

[rumpelstilzchen]

Look out......

Postby SalliNae » Thu May 21, 2015 9:07 pm

Okay....have done a little digging and found this.

Disabilities - Mortgages
An infant cannot be a legal mortgagee or chargee after 1925. An attempt to grant or transfer a legal mortgage or charge to one or more persons who are all infants operates as an agreement for value to execute a proper mortgage or transfer when the infant or infants are of full age, and the meantime to hold any beneficial interest in the mortgage debt in trust for the persons intended to benefit [LPA 1925s.19] . But a mortgage to an infant and other persons of full age operates, so far as the legal estate is concerned, as if the infant were not named, although any beneficial interest of his in the mortgage debt is not affected [LPA1925s.19]

Salli is going deeper and deeper down that rabbit hole. I blame the judge. He should not have worn that off the shoulder number.

[JonnyL]

This was interesting reading re Mr Ebert, just to cement the fact all that's said about him isn't hearsay.

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexa ... ert_2.html

I do apologise if it's already been posted before.

[NYGman]

This was interesting reading re Mr Ebert, just to cement the fact all that's said about him isn't hearsay.

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexa ... ert_2.html

I do apologise if it's already been posted before.

Whole Thread on Ebert viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10323 for those new arrivals.

One thing I will say, the rise of WeRe bank and Tom Crawford's case has brought many newbies here. There is a wealth of other informaiton here, I recommend going through some of the older threads here. We have many of the Guru's covered, and if we don't we probably should.

[vampireLOREN]

This was interesting reading re Mr Ebert, just to cement the fact all that's said about him isn't hearsay.

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexa ... ert_2.html

I do apologise if it's already been posted before.

I want my own copy bound in red leather