JonnyL wrote: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.
Reflecting on Tom's judgment I find it interesting that in many ways there wasn't that much traditional OPCA / fmotl content in Tom's submissions.
To summarise his arguments:
54 - non payment of fee / PCOL arguments (actually not that bad an argument given the Courts insanely strict approach to court fees. Obviously factually speaking they had paid the fee so this was a non runner)
62 - UCTA - not a great argument and not factually founded but worth a go.
63 - repudiatory breach - factually poor
64 - an old and mislplaced argument getting confused between 1989 act and the 1925 act.
69 - breach of contract - not on facts
75 - fraud. This is a bit more OPCA style dropping the "f" word is common.
81 - disclosure
83 - capitalisation - irrelevant considering he had arrears anyway but could be relevant in some cases
90 - quantum - might have merit but of no relevance to whether or not possession can be granted
95 - bankers books act
In summary whilst his arguments are very poor and Ill-founded they are not totally crazy or vexatious. He is relying on statute, reported mortgage cases of at least tangential relevance, the CPR and the facts of the case.
It looks to me he had a crack at the more goodfy ideas in his previous appeal in April 2013 [10] which was refused on paper. And to give some credit went with a more conventional, approach all be it doomed to failure.
tm169 - could you explain the meaning of the sentence in paragraph 11 ...
"On 27th September 2013 Mr Crawford applied to remove the charge from his property on the basis that it had been applied illegally."
As I understand it Guy Taylor is building towards challenging the Order of Possession on procedural grounds rather than the mechanics of the mortgage itself but as I see it these issues, the seal, wet ink signature, fee for claim etc have all been addressed by the court at one time or another anyway. Is there really anything else for Tom to argue that stands a chance of even coming to court or is that likely to be "dismissed on paper" too?
I assume "dismissed on paper" means the process that Tom described in one of his early videos where B&B asked for the arguments submitted by Tom to be considered before the actual hearing and the judge dismissed it as without merit "in his chambers".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Normal Wisdom wrote:As I understand it Guy Taylor is building towards challenging the Order of Possession on procedural grounds rather than the mechanics of the mortgage itself
Too late. They've just had a court hearing that established the facts. If there was a challenge on the procedure of B&B it should have been presented there.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
They have made Hollywood blockbusters in shorter time than this Tom Crawford explanation of judgement video.
You just know it is going to be the same old rubbish with the same old suspects.
I know, this thread will never make it to page 60 if this video doesn't come out. Does anybody know if that lunatics walk to the Nottingham post is still going ahead tomorrow?
Normal Wisdom wrote:I assume "dismissed on paper" means the process that Tom described in one of his early videos where B&B asked for the arguments submitted by Tom to be considered before the actual hearing and the judge dismissed it as without merit "in his chambers".
I think you're thinking too rationally.
When it comes to the OPCA crowd it wouldn't be a surprise if they:
Tom's representative wrote:The repossession and mortgage debt have both been dismissed on paper!
Tom's representative then holds up a paper napkin from the local low-end family restaurant that clearly states the mortgage debt is absolved.
JonnyL wrote:I know, this thread will never make it to page 60 if this video doesn't come out. Does anybody know if that lunatics walk to the Nottingham post is still going ahead tomorrow?
I would assume so unless the police, who politely asked for information about the route, have other ideas.
It's a shame I have other plans as I would have loved to have watched while they were arrested.
Seeing as how he / she is so fond of refuting the undeniable wouldn't it be more fitting to call him / her "Comical Salli"?
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
JonnyL wrote:I know, this thread will never make it to page 60 if this video doesn't come out. Does anybody know if that lunatics walk to the Nottingham post is still going ahead tomorrow?
It's difficult to say although there seems to be a bit of dissention on the FB page about whether the Nottingham Post's reports were inaccurate and some preferring to go to PoEs shindig instead.
The intervention of the police probably made them realise that there is no way they are going to get into the NP offices either so maybe the point of the demo is lost.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Normal Wisdom wrote:I assume "dismissed on paper" means the process that Tom described in one of his early videos where B&B asked for the arguments submitted by Tom to be considered before the actual hearing and the judge dismissed it as without merit "in his chambers".
I think you're thinking too rationally.
When it comes to the OPCA crowd it wouldn't be a surprise if they:
Tom's representative wrote:The repossession and mortgage debt have both been dismissed on paper!
Tom's representative then holds up a paper napkin from the local low-end family restaurant that clearly states the mortgage debt is absolved.
Just to clarify, the judgement says that Tom's previous appeal was "dismissed on paper". Tom's video says that B&B got the judge to consider the argument "in his chambers" before the actual hearing and he dismissed it and refused permission to appeal. I just wanted to check what "dismissed on paper" actually meant.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Normal Wisdom wrote:Just to clarify, the judgement says that Tom's previous appeal was "dismissed on paper". Tom's video says that B&B got the judge to consider the argument "in his chambers" before the actual hearing and he dismissed it and refused permission to appeal. I just wanted to check what "dismissed on paper" actually meant.
It means it never gets through the door of the court. The judge considers it in chambers and effectively chucks it in the bin for having a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
JonnyL wrote:I know, this thread will never make it to page 60 if this video doesn't come out. Does anybody know if that lunatics walk to the Nottingham post is still going ahead tomorrow?
It's difficult to say although there seems to be a bit of dissention on the FB page about whether the Nottingham Post's reports were inaccurate and some preferring to go to PoEs shindig instead.
The intervention of the police probably made them realise that there is no way they are going to get into the NP offices either so maybe the point of the demo is lost.
Interesting reading that, Andy Pears is in a right spin! One thing for sure though, that Craig Crawford is a vile piece of shit, seriously, the guy is vermin, a right nasty piece of work. The deluded march into Nottingham goes ahead then, they're all making themselves look like complete and utter prats... woo woo!!! If you go on youtube you'll see cretin Craig and his get rich quick schemes. This whole event couldn't happen to a nicer family in my opinion, from where I'm sitting they're all a bunch 'chancers'. No doubt they get it from their dad, he's now mixing with people like Ebert, Taylor and Waugh, and I bet he feels right at home. This is a fantastic teaching tool guys, if you agree to borrow money pay your f**king bills before shit gets real.
>>>
