UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Silly Ebert]

Wait so when does he get evicted.

My guess is within the next two weeks, using the second warrant issued in Dec 2014 that does not exist but has now had the suspension lifted.
On the plus side that park bench will be okay for the new home as mid June can be quite pleasant weather wise.

[Silly Ebert]

Michael O' Bernicia speaks.

Every individual currently causing confusion, paranoia and division over Tom’s case is either a complete fuckwit, an agent of the banksters or both. I will not be poisoning myself at the well of their verbal diarrhea, nor will I be engaging in any kind of public spat with them, no matter what defamatory comments they make; on the basis that they will all soon be hoisted on their own disgusting petards.

[vampireLOREN]

You can make out in the above £17x.75 - I am guessing the x is an 8.

Tom's own statements, that Tom showed on youtube, show the money from the cashed in endowment policy being credited to the mortgage account. Tom has known about this since 1992.

It just gets worse doesn't it. Tom needs a good friend like errrm Guy Taylor who will tell him that X = is not 8 but 10. That will put all the accusations of lies and deceit to rest once and for all.

Ahhhh but according to the Learned EBERT, B&B calculate using Roman Numerals so X is 10.

[littleFred]

Upthread I explained my understanding that Tom would need need to be given 14 days notice of an eviction. This was based on my understanding of Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 s2, which references regulations which in this case would be The Dwelling Houses (Execution of Possession Orders by Mortgagees) Regulations 2010.

I think my understanding, as far as it went, was correct. However, I didn't realise that this notice is required to be given before a warrant is issued. See CPR 83.26:

(5) When applying for a warrant of possession of a dwelling-house subject to a mortgage, the claimant must certify that notice has been given in accordance with the Dwelling Houses (Execution of Possession Orders by Mortgagees) Regulations 2010.

So, Tom must have been given his 14 days notice for a warrant to be issued. But do we know for sure that the notice has been given? Yes. Guy shows the eviction notice in The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!! at 16m 25s.

After the recent hearing, the warrant is now live. So, as far as I can see, no further notice needs to be given to Tom that the warrant will be enforced. Enforcement officers can turn up at any time.

[wanglepin]

It just gets worse doesn't it. Tom needs a good friend like errrm Guy Taylor who will tell him that X = is not 8 but 10. That will put all the accusations of lies and deceit to rest once and for all.

Ahhhh but according to the Learned EBERT, B&B calculate using Roman Numerals so X is 10.

Yes this is the system Guy Taylor will have used being trained by Ebert as shown above."X = is not 8 but 10".

[Bones]

Lol I said x because I couldn't make out the number.

I am still laughing about what the judge was thinking when Tom thanked him for making the right decision.

Has part 2 been released yet. I am unsure it will be after yesterdays complete and utter failure.

[wanglepin]

Lol I said x because I couldn't make out the number.

I am still laughing about what the judge was thinking when Tom thanked him for making the right decision.

Has part 2 been released yet. I am unsure it will be after yesterdays complete and utter failure.

Ole` Ceylon must have hit the juice last night. I would have if I had have been made to look such a complete berk by my own Forum and my own videos. loved the boat post, Bones. I think we are looking at a bit of a goofer revolt. They would help themselves if they would just allow free and open debate.
But meantime, Tom will be evicted,Taylor is metal and Ebert is still "marveling" at Tom Crawford's win. And wanglepin is still pissing himself laughing.

[Bones]

And wanglepin is still pissing himself laughing.

It is not over yet, today is a special day.

We have Tom's demonstration and Peter's meeting both starting in Nottingham at 2 today.

Hope those goofer's are fast uploading to youtube today

[vampireLOREN]

Lol I said x because I couldn't make out the number.

I am still laughing about what the judge was thinking when Tom thanked him for making the right decision.

Has part 2 been released yet. I am unsure it will be after yesterdays complete and utter failure.

But in all honesty the pathos of this nonsense is mind numbing. These people are DANGEROUS
those lunatics in Co Durham apparently paid for years then used GOOFY type information.
Mr&Mrs Sinclair-Grant of Luton ditto, and after eviction they THANK these people for their help. I can see the point of being a free person, standing for rights hurting no one being a citizen....but also honouring commitments and debts/paying your way.
Its actually at the point I want to see the Crawford's given the stamped/sealed/wet ink signature (in blue ink) ORDER OF THE BOOT. I have had enough of this Panama Hatted devious swine.

[vampireLOREN]

Upthread I explained my understanding that Tom would need need to be given 14 days notice of an eviction. This was based on my understanding of Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 s2, which references regulations which in this case would be The Dwelling Houses (Execution of Possession Orders by Mortgagees) Regulations 2010.

I think my understanding, as far as it went, was correct. However, I didn't realise that this notice is required to be given before a warrant is issued. See CPR 83.26:

(5) When applying for a warrant of possession of a dwelling-house subject to a mortgage, the claimant must certify that notice has been given in accordance with the Dwelling Houses (Execution of Possession Orders by Mortgagees) Regulations 2010.

So, Tom must have been given his 14 days notice for a warrant to be issued. But do we know for sure that the notice has been given? Yes. Guy shows the eviction notice in The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!! at 16m 25s.

After the recent hearing, the warrant is now live. So, as far as I can see, no further notice needs to be given to Tom that the warrant will be enforced. Enforcement officers can turn up at any time.

Well done Little Fred, a one word comment
GOOD.

[littleFred]

A others have said, The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!! is junk. It is a long-winded complaint that due process, as defined by Guy, hasn't been followed. He and Tom make many assertions about this process, eg at 16m 25s:

Guy: This notice of eviction, is as far as we've seen. Now, that's supposed to be attached to the warrant. The warrant doesn't exist. It's like the golden fleece or something.

Tom: It's supposed to have an affidavit attached to it, all the information of money that's owed, it's supposed to have every bit of the process attached to that warrant.

As I mention above, CPR requires that notice is given before the claimant can apply for the warrant. So obviously the notice couldn't have the warrant attached to it, because the warrant didn't exist when the notice was given.

The rules that Guy (or whoever) has invented contradict those given in CPR. And he complains that because his invented rules are not followed, fraud is committed.

Tom is also wrong, of course. There is no requirement that the warrant has an attached affidavit or anything else.

If Tom and Guy bothered checking their facts, they would realise they were wrong. If they bothered to read the actual rules, they might find areas where the claimant or courts had actually been wrong. But they are too deluded by their own inventions. They are so convinced that the banks and courts are fraudulent that they need to invent this junk as "evidence" of fraud.

I fully understand why a person in Tom's position doesn't like banks and courts. But if he wants the best outcome, he needs to escape from the delusions fostered by Guy, Ceylon and co.

[Bones]

Looks like the idiots are waking up

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WBPZkYvb6Y

Re: The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!

Postby SalliNae » Sat May 23, 2015 10:47 am
Wow. Such negativity.......

The most astounding quote of all is that Tom should get a solicitor. I can't remember who posted that but there are thousands of people up and down the country who tried that malarkey and it all they were left with was the sight of solicitors putting in big fat bills. Even the CAB are getting in on the act putting in for costs.

Big question here, given that all of you have so much faith in the judgment and have no concerns about the fact that there are anomalies in the paperwork. Has anyone seen Tom's paperwork? Has anyone seen the chronology, skeleton arguments.

There are people up and down the country who did things "by the book" and lost their homes and they are routing for Tom and Guy and everyone because they know this country is undergoing an asset grab, the likes of which has never been experienced in recent years.

Now I don't know about you lot but I am speaking for many who has lost an asset without the production of paperwork and I know others who have been given paperwork that I could have created on the internet. That document of Tom's, the one that says "court seal", you do realise you can print one online in minutes, fill it out, type in a name and voila......you could technically knock on your neighbours door and go collect their car......... Oh wait you can't because you are not wearing a costume. Okay.....well don't worry, if you can convince the Police it is real (and they are not allowed to question paperwork) the car is yours. This is how ridiculous the whole system is.

So tell me people, are Court protocols no longer required? Is it okay for judges to make a judgment without having sight of the evidence and ignoring such evidence that was placed before him.

Can everyone please remember that it is Tom's home. Tom has made his case public to expose the lack of process and due diligence and the negative attention he has received, together with the spin, tells me that he is hitting a few nerves.

Now tell me this. If it was your home, would you be happy to lose it on the basis of a piece of paper that doesn't follow their own rules or would you want things done properly? Would you want to see the warrant that allowed someone to take your property or would you be happy for a bunch of goons to pitch up and help themselves.

Bradford and Bingley have been caught out lying. Their solicitors and barrister supported that lie quite readily and frankly, had Tom hired a solicitor, that solicitors first priority would be to the Court which means those lies would never have been exposed.

You are all entitled to your opinions but fighting each other over someone else's path is plain madness. Tom is being the change he wants to see. If this is unpalatable for you. That is okay. You can do things your way if it happens to you. In the meantime, let's please stop fighting and start supporting.

Sallienae, it was a long standing Mod of GOODF that said it. How can you say you don't remember who said it when it is the 3rd post of the thread you have posted the above in ?

Re: The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!

Postby letissier14 » Fri May 22, 2015 11:07 pm
Embarrassing. Tom needs to get a solicitor asap

Tom is not losing his home because of a piece of paper. He is losing it because he didn't pay the capital

[littleFred]

I entirely agree with SalliNae that things should be done properly, following the rules. But she falls into the same trap as Tom, believing in Guy's fantasy version of the rules.

That document of Tom's, the one that says "court seal", you do realise you can print one online in minutes, fill it out, type in a name and voila......you could technically knock on your neighbours door and go collect their car......... Oh wait you can't because you are not wearing a costume. Okay.....well don't worry, if you can convince the Police it is real (and they are not allowed to question paperwork) the car is yours. This is how ridiculous the whole system is.

Yes, crimes are technically possible. But this one, of impersonating a court officer, carries a far greater penalty than that of mere car theft.

[Hercule Parrot]

Re: The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!
Postby SalliNae » Sat May 23, 2015 10:47 am

Big question here, given that all of you have so much faith in the judgment and have no concerns about the fact that there are anomalies in the paperwork. Has anyone seen Tom's paperwork? Has anyone seen the chronology, skeleton arguments....
Is it okay for judges to make a judgment without having sight of the evidence and ignoring such evidence that was placed before him.

It would be helpful if they could keep their nonsense organised into some sort of coherent story.

Last week we were being told that the judgement upheld Tom's claim, but because it was written in 'legalese' this wasn't easily apparent to a lay reader. When explained by expert bankrupt fools, it could be properly seen as great VICTORY!

Now we are being told that it was not a great VICTORY! after all, it was a miscarriage of justice. Because the judge failed to give proper attention to some or other documents (which is almost certainly not true, otherwise TC would have easy grounds for appeal).

Salmonella regrets believing last week's lies and wants to make a fresh start with a new lie. It's quite depressing how much people will twist reality to avoid dealing with the facts, laid out in a clear and plainly-written judgement.

[slowsmile]

That document of Tom's, the one that says "court seal", you do realise you can print one online in minutes, fill it out, type in a name and voila......you could technically knock on your neighbours door and go collect their car......... Oh wait you can't because you are not wearing a costume. Okay.....well don't worry, if you can convince the Police it is real (and they are not allowed to question paperwork) the car is yours. This is how ridiculous the whole system is.

Yes SalliNae - it's amazing what you can find on the internet. There's the website you moderate for instance - it purports to help people like Tom to save their home but the advice they give is so stupid it makes eviction well nigh inevitable.

[Bones]

King Goofer has time to post on this thread

Re: Commonlaw court launched in Magistrates 22 May 2015

Postby ceylon » Sat May 23, 2015 10:54 am
should be interesting

But has nothing to say about the fall out from that video he posted yesterday. I wonder why that is

(I wonder if I have done enough in the last couple of days to at least get my name mentioned in a video)

[PeanutGallery]

So much stupid. It hurts brain.

Salli's idea would fall under let's see Fraud, Forgery, Perverting the Course of Justice etc. She doesn't seem to realise that the Bailiffs can convince the Police their paperwork is real, because the Police can independently check with the court, that the Bailiff is actually in possession of a warrant issued by that court.

The Police do do that, they have appeared on video's saying that they have done that. If the Bailiffs turned up tomorrow to evict Tom (which they won't it being a bank holiday and all) then if Tom complained the Police would check (of course if the Bailiffs had any sense they'd already have gotten the Police to have checked and to attend).

In my opinion supporting Tom means giving him advice that would actually help get him out of the bad situation he was in and not leave him any worse off than he needs to be. Promising him what he wants to hear is only going to cause him harm in the long run. That is what has happened here. Tom has disappeared off down his rabbit hole and I don't think he'll be coming out of it even after he is evicted. He will instead become another Ebert, unable to shake fact from the fictions he has been sold by Taylor et al.

I also note that in the video Guy goes on about the skeleton argument, as though that carries any weight in the Judgement. It doesn't. The only thing that carries any weight in the Judgement is the opinion of the Judge. Also the Judge didn't say that B & B had lied in the passage about the computer, just that he wanted more information on the calculation of arrears than he had been given and would expect B & B to know and explain how the computer worked the figure out. That is what was meant by computers should be our slaves and not our masters.

(As it was I found that phrase doubly funny because a computer in English is not just a machine, it can mean a person who does mathematical calculations, like working out arrears on a mortgage for a given date, but I don't think the Judge meant that).

All in all those on GOODF who are claiming this as a victory don't understand what has happened. They expect that Tom will be evicted, or that the Bailiffs will return, and yet if he had won they would know that this couldn't happen. They are instead avoiding the reality and escaping off into fantasy.

[Bones]

Just watched the video again - watch the first couple of minutes, it looks like Guy is thinking "what am I going to have for dinner tonight" or may be "how close is the nearest pub"

[PeanutGallery]

Re: The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!
Postby SalliNae » Sat May 23, 2015 10:47 am

Big question here, given that all of you have so much faith in the judgment and have no concerns about the fact that there are anomalies in the paperwork. Has anyone seen Tom's paperwork? Has anyone seen the chronology, skeleton arguments....
Is it okay for judges to make a judgment without having sight of the evidence and ignoring such evidence that was placed before him.

Sallie you dear cretin. The only person who needed to see Tom's paperwork, his chronology or skeleton was the Judge. If Tom submitted these, then the Judge did see it and would have considered it. That is what the Judge does.

But the Judge doesn't just listen to one side of the story. He has to be fair and that means listening to both sides and then reaching a decision. You don't know that the Judge ignored evidence and just because a Judge doesn't accept a submission it doesn't mean he ignored it. The Judge listened to Tom, he explained that in his verdict. He just didn't agree with Tom.

[PeanutGallery]

Just watched the video again - watch the first couple of minutes, it looks like Guy is thinking "what am I going to have for dinner tonight" or may be "how close is the nearest pub"

Or where's the nearest Asda so I's can has a cup of tea.