UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Hercule Parrot]

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.

A suitable moment to thank the site owner and staff for tolerating the recent spurt of Brit activity. I know that I speak for my fellow covert banking shill child-molesting lizard freemason brothers, we really appreciate the Quatloos community.

[PeanutGallery]

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.

Earlier she had noted:

However, court dress may be dispensed with at the option of the judge, e.g. in very hot weather, and invariably where it may intimidate children, e.g. in the Family Division and at the trials of minors.

Somehow I don't think she understands the acronym e.g. it stands for examples given and isn't meant to convey an exhaustive list. As it states court dress may be dispensed with at the option of the Judge. That's the rule. The Judge can choose if they want people in court dress or not. Many choose not to go robed because they feel that the robes can make them look a bit of a tit.

[wanglepin]

I want my own copy bound in red leather

Autographed and stamped with raised red wax sealion

[wanglepin]

I am still waiting for someone brave enough to come back and bite Sycophantic Salli in the arse;
: Tom & Sue's VICTORY EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... V5PazTF98E

So Tom won`t lose his home then?

I hardly think success would be reported by Tom, whose home is at stake, and who has had sight of the judgment in full, if it was anything other than a success.

[JonnyL]

I want my own copy bound in red leather

Autographed and stamped with raised red wax sealion

LOVE IT!

[wanglepin]

I cannot help but wonder, what the conversations must be like at these Asda meetings held by goodfer’s after they have has good day at court, or after a visit to the Police station? They must just sit there wondering who can tell the best lies.
Taylor: “I arrested a judge today”.
Ceylon: “I know, I was there, I seen you”.
Crawford: I didn't see any of that, where was I”.
Ebert: “You, Tom old boy; slapped the cuffs on the judge, it was a marvellous sight to see, Tom, you should have been there”.
Crawford: “I was there”?
Ceylon: “Yes Tom, you were not there, that'll be £15.00”.
Crawford: “I don't understand”.
Ebert: “let me put it this way in simple terms so you will understand Tom, it will only cost you a £1,000.00 extra”.
“If I have a nice clean dry footpath leading to my house then I can see it is nice and dry. Are you with me so far?”
Crawford: “yes what do you think I am, slow”?
Taylor: I will answer that for you Tom , and at only the minimal cost. No Tom, you are not slow”.
Ebert: “well when my nice dry clean footpath gets wet during rainstorm, I ask you, is it dry or is it wet?”
Crawford: “it is wet”.
Ebert: “Ah but is it really”? You see Tom, when the sun comes out and the wetness disappears you will see that underneath all the time it was in fact dry all along!!!!, and it wasn't really wet at all”.
Crawford: “You're having me on aren't you”?
Ceylon: I'll answer that for you Tom, it will only cost you my beer for life. No Tom, Mr Ebert is not having you on”.

[JonnyL]

Video is done apparently peeps, looks like there's 2 versions, a nasty one and a more of the same bullshit one.

[wanglepin]

Where's that video we were promised today? The one that will explain it all.

[#six]

You guys have given me much enjoyment over the past 3 weeks so I thought it was time I signed up and gave my view on this matter.

When I first heard about the Crawfords and their battle with B&B I was quite impressed with their determination and with the turn out of people protecting their home. I do feel that banks are often (sometimes?) too quick to withdraw support from those struggling to pay their mortgage and this appeared to me to be a David an Goliath battle.

However, the more I have read about the case on here and on GOODF, initially from my reading up about Peter of England, the more I have come to the conclusion that the Crawfords are the makers of their own downfall.

It seems quite clear that they held an endowment mortgage and an endowment policy and that they either cashed in the policy or lapsed with the payments causing the policy to be cancelled. Now it is possible that they may have had a claim against B&B for mis-selling them an endowment as its quite clear that they never realised the importance of the endowment policy. But as far as I am aware they have never offered that as an argument in court. Alas, I think it is too late for them to take this avenue. Had they not gotten involved with the nutters on GOODF and had instead got some proper legal advice then maybe they would have been able to do this.

Despite my initial "support" for their plight I have now lost every ounce of sympathy for them. I find the freeman movement to be one of greed and selfishness. Regardless of the arguments put forward about money being created from nothing, debts not being owed due to "legal" process not being followed and so on, the fact remains if you borrow money then you have a morally duty to pay it back. The freeman movement, in my view is full of amoral people. As soon as they get involved with these arguments they lost my support. And it would seem that they are beginning to lose the support of others too.

Whilst I can never feel happy about someone losing their home, I do feel that them losing their home is the best thing that can happen. Its important that this freeman bull is shown to be what it really is. If the Crawfords keep their home then I fear that many more will jump on the freeman bandwagon and then it wont be long before the government step in and tighten the law, making it much much harder for people with real financial difficulties to find a way out of their predicament. People with debt should be encouraged to work with the banks to find an amicable solution. They can never get that if they use freeman arguments or if the law is tightened to nip these arguments in the bud.

[JonnyL]

Welcome #six, yes i agree with your comments there, it seems they've always been financially strained from what i can see on the judgement. Even if the endowment was mis sold it'd still have no bearing on the repossession claim, the crawford camp are trying to muddy the waters, this repossession is about one thing only and that's Tom accruing 2+months of arrears in 2012, the judge said that judges have no option but to grant the possession order in such circumstances.


at least he'll leave with some money which is more than most people leave with.

[vampireLOREN]

I want my own copy bound in red leather

Autographed and stamped with raised red wax sealion

LOVE IT!

Must be signed with "moist" ink.

[wanglepin]

Dissent in the ranks !
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... V5lIzTF98E

Make no difference if he was wearing a leopardskin mankini standing next to a carboard nude cutout of bert reynolds to be honest .

Sorry i must be on the wrong planet .

So the judgement ( seeing as many pretty well read and experienced people who have come up against it ). The key word being EXPERIENCED .

We got Chinese legalese which apparently can only be seen by those who are in the inner echelon wink wink an all that .

Its a big success when the judge has lifted the repossession order . REALLY ??

We got withholding of important information and people being mugged off and still ( i can fucking read ) even though its relatively plain english and the judges have been throwing him a bone on previous occasions to get it sorted will end up being turfed out on his arse.

I make no apologies or bones about it if this was known by the so called echelon of insiders hang your heads in shame you arseholes . Youve duped and fucked over genuine people who took time and spent their own hard earned money to attend a fucking farce .
Gutted disgusted

[JonnyL]

OUCH!!! No holding back there!!! I honestly do believe this event has completely woken a lot of people up from their freetard coma. There's splits everywhere, even Hannah Rose is making perfect sense whilst breaking this scam down, and it is a scam, prob not a financial one on it's followers but a scam on loyalty belief and trust. People are finally realising they've been taken for prats.

[exiledscouser]

Ho ho, methinks Noisytone was out on the sauce last night.

That last paragraph in WP's quote above is a proper cri de coeur and one that must be going through the minds of the more rational Freeple (if that's not an oxymoron) at the moment.

He is not alone in the wee small hours; the fearless Salli

I am not in possession of all the facts so cannot possibly give an informed opinion

yeah that one - is having a late night too trying to sooth Tone's post-pub blues.

He is having none of it;

Yeah your cutting and pasting opinions from some someone trying to verify all this bullshit who ended up doing 9 months for contempt of court and got nowhere what use is that ? 
really trying to be accommodating but it aint sitting right

In a couple of hours Tone will be waking up with a headache and an uneaten kebab in his coat pocket (yes I know we've all done it) and will look back on last night's heresy with horror. But he was right and the usual suspects all know it. The mask slips again.

Perhaps Salli didn't realise that the judge crossed his fingers throughout his hearing and had a pair of Union Jack shreddies on under those oh-so non judicial robes. Sal thinks Tom might have been fooled (by the sneaky expediency of a last-minute change in the scheduled court room) into being a minor.

Come on Sal keep with it - he was a carpet fitter, never went down t'pit in his life.

[Hercule Parrot]

We got withholding of important information and people being mugged off and still ( I can fucking read ) even though its relatively plain English and the judges have been throwing him a bone on previous occasions to get it sorted will end up being turfed out on his arse.

I make no apologies or bones about it if this was known by the so called echelon of insiders hang your heads in shame you arseholes . You've duped and fucked over genuine people who took time and spent their own hard earned money to attend a fucking farce .
Gutted disgusted

Wow! It's encouraging to see people waking up to the lies they've been told.

[littleFred]

SalliNae's conjectures about what the judge wore and whether Tom was tricked into being considered a child are desperate and futile attempts to search for evidence in support of a desired conclusion.

Her conclusion is: Tom won.

But she's not totally stupid, and has read at least the judge's conclusions. Like Mr Ebert, Tom and the rest, she needs to justify her own conclusion.

[notorial dissent]

My sense is that this was a scam in the sense that the principal bad actors, I really love using that phrase in the proper context, were on a grand ego trip that will regrettably end in Tom and his wife losing their house, with no cost at all to the "legal team". I don't know how good a grip on reality Tom had to begin with, but I suspect his illness and other things conspired to over ride what little sense he might have originally had and in his weakened state was a ready victim to the bad actors. It doesn't strike me that Tom, or his family are or ever were the sharpest knives in the drawer, but when it comes right down to it they have gotten where they are by dint of their own effort, its just that his so called "legal team" exacerbated the problem most likely beyond mending, and Tom has swallowed the fantasy and is now not dealing with reality at all. It will, of course, all come crumbling down when the bailiffs show up and it all comes crashing down.

[#six]

Well, the new video, like the win for Tom has failed to materialise. Come on guys, I'm waiting for some more entertainment

[Normal Wisdom]

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.

It has but it's still a great read. For even more entertainment I recommend this transcript of his hearings in relation to the charge of criminal damage and harassment that he incurred. It's the sheer pig headed refusal to listen to the judge or accept undeniable facts that make it so funny as well as the judge's increasing exasperation. It also provides further explanation of why with Ebert advising him, Tom believes he has won.

https://mrebert.files.wordpress.com/201 ... etails.pdf

Incidentally some of the multicoloured headings and comments have been clearly added and some sections of text highlighted by an Ebert supporter. I now believe that it was Sabine McNeil most recently infamous for her involvement in stoking up the Hampstead SRA hoax.

[Normal Wisdom]

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.

A suitable moment to thank the site owner and staff for tolerating the recent spurt of Brit activity. I know that I speak for my fellow covert banking shill child-molesting lizard freemason brothers, we really appreciate the Quatloos community.

I apologise for publishing the first uncut version of the abusive message I received. It did cross my mind that it might be a bit strong and I can only plead diminished responsibility on the grounds that my mind was temporarily unbalanced by all the attention I was receiving. Should I provoke a similar response from the big, wide world of internet in future (quite likely) and should I feel the need to publish it here (much less likely) I will ensure that it is suitable censored.

On a more positive note I echo Hercule's comments wholeheartedly. For me Quatloos is an oasis of logic and good humour in a sea of lunacy and insults.