UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[wanglepin]

People want the truth and to find solutions to this one sided shit not led up the garden and have their trousers taken down in all instances .

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... V7MOTTF98E
He should ask Sycophant Salli why Tom can't front up with a WeRE cheque?
That would be out of Salli`s jurisdiction though I suppose.

[PeanutGallery]

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

My favourite part is:

JUDGE (unknown) (JUSTICE PETER CHARLES ADER): Mr Ebert, do you think
this is doing you any good?

DEFENDANT: I believe so.

JUDGE (unknown) (JUSTICE PETER CHARLES ADER): Well, let me disabuse
you of that belief.

[littleFred]

As this isn't Mr Ebert's thread we shouldn't get too distracted by his stupidity. But it's worth pointing out that his courtroom gaffs don't need the detective skills of a Burnaby49. Mr Ebert himself publishes transcripts of his own failures.

[Bones]

I have not had a chance to listen to it yet


Amanda Pike
12 mins

This is a radio interview from last night with Guy Taylor explaining one of the reasons we won our case he explains the due process and not about the merits. its really good , do have a listen while we wait for this video
smile emoticon
x

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomtal ... in-edwards


Amanda Pike
10 hrs

Okay I have just heard the video is done, its in 2 parts and once Mark Ceylon uploads it It will be shared into here, I'm not sure when, It was only recorded tonight xx

They have moved from the graveyard, something about dogging - not sure what that is and instead I am told it was filmed in the toilets of the little chef

[wanglepin]

As this isn't Mr Ebert's thread we shouldn't get too distracted by his stupidity. But it's worth pointing out that his courtroom gaffs don't need the detective skills of a Burnaby49. Mr Ebert himself publishes transcripts of his own failures.

With the understanding that this is not the Ebert thread I do feel it quite right to point out here that these are the kind of responses Tom Crawford can look forward to receiving if he is stupid enough to proceed.

He should not be banging his head against this brick wall, unless, as I say, he really can come up with something new.”

Mr Ebert’s responses to the Attorney’s application offer powerful confirmation of his obsessive and deluded state of mind.

[Burnaby49]

Dogging? Really? Filmed in the Toilet in the Little Chef?

From Wikipedia;

Public sex, referred to in the UK as "dogging", is sexual activity that takes place in a public context. It refers to a person or more than one person performing a sex act in a public place or in a private place which can be viewed from a public place. Such private places can include the back yard or even the bedroom with the curtains open. It also includes such acts in a semi-public place, where the general public is free to enter, such as a shopping mall. Public places where sex acts can be performed include a car (commonly called "parking"), on a beach, in the woods, as well as in a theatre, bus, street, toilet, cubicle or cemetery.

Are they moving on to new endeavors now that they've screwed up Tom as much as they can? If they've made a video I'll pass.

[Bones]

Dogging? Really? Filmed in the Toilet in the Little Chef?

From Wikipedia;

Public sex, referred to in the UK as "dogging", is sexual activity that takes place in a public context. It refers to a person or more than one person performing a sex act in a public place or in a private place which can be viewed from a public place. Such private places can include the back yard or even the bedroom with the curtains open. It also includes such acts in a semi-public place, where the general public is free to enter, such as a shopping mall. Public places where sex acts can be performed include a car (commonly called "parking"), on a beach, in the woods, as well as in a theatre, bus, street, toilet, cubicle or cemetery.

Are they moving on to new endeavors now that they've screwed up Tom as much as they can? If they've made a video I'll pass.

Is a graveyard a public place ?

Just a rumour I heard

I have listened to the radio show (well a little bit of it) - Guy is saying people are getting to hung up on the merits of the case ? Also seems to be avoiding the topic of the judgement actually going against Tom and did not read as a victory as they had all claimed.

They now seem to be looking at what Guy refers to as "Due Process" - However, Guy forgets that we have all read the judgement and we all know the history now.

[littleFred]

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but 2 Peas In A Podcast with Guy Taylor and Kevin Edwards is sad and funny. Guy starts at 7m 0s. He says Tom's situation is very simple, but then has great difficulty explaining it. It boils down to this: there has never been a court case that Tom has lost, because the original claim form for the possession wasn't stamped and so on. Therefore, there was nothing to appeal against. So it didn't matter if the appeal was allowed or not.

This is a novel approach to the "Tom really won because ..." problem. The difficulty is that this argument would have to be made in appeal, and the judge has not allowed an appeal. So the possession order stands.

Guy is confused between what he thinks the judge should have ruled, and what he actually ruled.

[Bones]

Guy claims that the latest hearing was not appeal as there was not an earlier hearing to appeal from.

Looks like Guy has not read the case or is trying to get people to believe more BS ! - the below is from the judgement


This is an appeal from an order of Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith made as long ago as 19th September 2012.

The initial hearing was before Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith on 19th September 2012.

7. The Deputy District Judge made the following order:-

1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton,
Gedling, Nottinghamshire, NG4 1DN on or before 17 October 2012.

2. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85 being the amount outstanding
under the mortgage which is not to be enforced so long as the possession
order remains suspended.

3. This order is not to be enforced so long as the defendant pays the current
instalments under the mortgage the first instalment being paid on or
before 30th September 2012.

4. This matter shall be listed for review in six months on a date to be fixed by
the court.

The review hearing took place on 27th March 2013 before Deputy District Judge Holt. . No further order was made presumably because the current mortgage instalment payments were being met by the Crawfords

10. On 15th April 2013 Mr and Mrs Crawford sought to appeal the orders of 19th September 2012 and 27th March 2013 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 the 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.

The crawford's have known since April 2013 that the arguments about the signature and seal were without merit and that the original claim was made via the online system. Something I think they claimed to have found out at the hearing on 1st May - I will double check that

[JonnyL]

The Pike woman is on the offensive this morning butting her unwanted face into old threads. The appeal to appeal against the repossession order was refused due the fact that 2 month's of arrears triggered the lawful process. Tom can debate the technicalities of the mortgage all he wants from the comfort of his new bedsit.

[wserra]

A suitable moment to thank the site owner and staff for tolerating the recent spurt of Brit activity.

"Tolerate" isn't the correct word. It's welcome.

Just not on July 4.

[wanglepin]

because the original claim form for the possession wasn't stamped and so on. Therefore, there was nothing to appeal against. So it didn't matter if the appeal was allowed or not.

We had this crap the other night on the Vin cast. He spoke a lot about signatures and sea life etc but I am well read upon my Jacques Cousteau and can tell you, Taylor doesn't know what he is talking about.He doesn't even know the difference between a Seal and a Sea Horse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGSJA3OOOuo

[wserra]

I apologise for publishing the first uncut version of the abusive message I received.

Don't apologize (please note correct spelling). It was entirely appropriate to post it as is. Once.

[guilty]

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but 2 Peas In A Podcast with Guy Taylor and Kevin Edwards is sad and funny.

Gosh. Where do you start with this nonsense?
Guy Taylor rambles on for 30 minutes with references to past cases, (cars, murder, council tax) and generally makes things up by using metaphor.
He says several times:

We are not interested in the merits of the case

but the main claim, it seems, is that the original possession order was not in the prescribed form, was not 'sealed', no fee had been paid, and there was no affidavit attached.

He mentions 'Ebert Orders' (Extended civil restraint orders) as if that is some demonstration that Ged Ebert is an expert. I think it might demonstrate something else!
The opinion of the broadcaster is that people are designated vexatious litigants because the are "getting in the way of the money-making process."

Taylor says that the judge "had to cover his ass" by allowing the appeal, and again points to para 91 of the judgement as evidence of... something.

Other notable comments:

Tom's case has never been through a court

It's all a scam

He (Tom) is well happy with the decision

We're well happy

Void ab initio

Guy also continues to claim that Tom was originally paying a capital repayment mortgage (but he also had an endowment policy) and that the mortgage was changed to an interest-only one.

What's their next step? Well, they are going to demand a 'review and revise' (I thought that was only in Indian courts?). Perhaps he meant Judicial Review (which he is far too late for, it's already been reviewed in court, i.e. the appeal hearing you were just at, you numpty). The only route as far as I know, is to go the Court of Appeal and complain about the decision of Godsmark QC. Best of luck with that.

[wanglepin]

The only route as far as I know, is to go the Court of Appeal and complain about the decision of Godsmark QC. Best of luck with that.

You`re forgetting aren't you that lawful rebellion now has there own Grand Jury?
When this is likely to take place I'm sure will be coming in the Lawful Rebellion Summer 'Conference'chin wag. where I am sure Tom Crawford will get the result he believes he deserves. That said , when Guy Taylor took his case before his Grand Jury, they couldn't make up their minds. They were all ignoramuses.

[Silly Ebert]

What is Guy Taylor going on about when he says the "Notice of eviction was refused not the warrant"????.
You can't refuse a Notice of eviction you just get one posted ,stuck to your door or maybe handed to you, refusing it is meaningless . The bailiff would not offer the warrant anyway?
This man speaks in riddles.
As for the rubbish about occupants not being arrested for contempt regarding an eviction this has happened and may well in TC'S case, either that or an injunction.

[guilty]

You`re forgetting aren't you that lawful rebellion now has there own Grand Jury?
When this is likely to take place I'm sure will be coming in the Lawful Rebellion Summer 'Conference'chin wag. where I am sure Tom Crawford will get the result he believes he deserves. That said , when Guy Taylor took his case before his Grand Jury, they couldn't make up their minds. They were all ignoramuses.

They can have as many meetings in Asda as they like. Unfortunately, Grand Juries were abolished in 1948, so their chin-wags will have no effect.

[guilty]

They were all ignoramuses.

Nice play on words!

Note: ignoramus ("We don't know") was written on the bill from the Grand Jury if they didn't find enough evidence to indict.

[JonnyL]

Just read a story on unilad about a man who was legally represented by a stuffed owl in court. This is how whacky Tom's case could yet get.

[NYGman]

Just read a story on unilad about a man who was legally represented by a stuffed owl in court. This is how whacky Tom's case could yet get.

Link, or it never happened

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/2 ... 46944.html