My guessJeffrey wrote:Wait so when does he get evicted.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![whistle :whistle:](./images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif)
On the plus side that park bench will be okay for the new home as mid June can be quite pleasant weather wise.
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
My guessJeffrey wrote:Wait so when does he get evicted.
Ahhhh but according to the Learned EBERT, B&B calculate using Roman Numerals so X is 10.wanglepin wrote:Bones wrote:
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.
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.(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.
Yes this is the system Guy Taylor will have used being trained by Ebert as shown above."X = is not 8 but 10".vampireLOREN wrote:Ahhhh but according to the Learned EBERT, B&B calculate using Roman Numerals so X is 10.wanglepin wrote: 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.
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.Bones wrote: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.
It is not over yet, today is a special day.wanglepin wrote: And wanglepin is still pissing himself laughing.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
But in all honesty the pathos of this nonsense is mind numbing. These people are DANGEROUSBones wrote: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.
Well done Little Fred, a one word commentlittleFred wrote: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: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.(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.
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.
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.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.
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 ?Sallienae wrote: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.
Tom is not losing his home because of a piece of paper. He is losing it because he didn't pay the capitalletissier14 wrote:Re: The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!
Postby letissier14 » Fri May 22, 2015 11:07 pm
Embarrassing. Tom needs to get a solicitor asap
Yes, crimes are technically possible. But this one, of impersonating a court officer, carries a far greater penalty than that of mere car theft.SalliNae wrote: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.
It would be helpful if they could keep their nonsense organised into some sort of coherent story.Sallienae wrote: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.
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.SalliNae wrote: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.
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.Sallienae wrote: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.
Or where's the nearest Asda so I's can has a cup of tea.Bones wrote: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"