UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[exiledscouser]

One thought; is this vexatious litigation by proxy? Given that Ebert cannot bring a legal action himself without leave of the court, in a case where this "convicted" vexatious litigant is clearly driving a 3rd party cannot the court sit up and take notice?

To whom would one complain?

[Tom Carter]

Might be a good time to list the people Tom called for help. Call it a rogue's gallery if you will for people that aren't familiar with Tom's legal experts

What a wonderful idea.

Identify - Expose - Name - Shame

[Normal Wisdom]

There is always the possibility that this thread with all its discussion is playing right into their hands. This whole cacophony of smoke screens and mirrors could be being deliberately engineered with the sole purpose of driving traffic to their website & YouTube channel, the Crawford case just being used as the vehicle.

I can't see any other motive or point to it all because the judgement, when all is said and done, is what it is.

The more we all talk about it here the more the issue gets propagated around the internet and in turn the more click through traffic they get. At the end of the day website traffic = £££ to these guys because of carrying adverts.

The more external links pointing directly back to their site that we provide in this thread and elsewhere the more direct traffic we drive their way. In addition, external links equal a higher page ranking with Google.

What do they say... Any publicity, however bad, is good publicity.

PS - The Pt Two video, (total crap), adds nothing new! Crawford still lost!

There's a danger that we're giving Tom's handlers too much credit for any kind of organisation or strategy. Part of his problem is that he has at least two but possibly more largely separate "legal teams" each with their own peculiar (in every sense of the word) methods of analysing and advancing the situation.

So you get Ebert's forensic analysis of what the judgement meant, Guy Taylor's baloney about court seals and documentation and O'Deira - well I'm not sure what he does part from apparently a mean ventriloquist act in court. That's how you end up with Tom winning in a court that doesn't exist because the documentation was wrong and because it's a family court presided over by a non-judge in the wrong clothes and anyway he doesn't owe any money.

Ceylon just does what he always does which is to hoover up any cock-eyed theory and broadcast it as fact irrespective of whether it is patent nonsense or conflicts with other ideas. It's all just part of his strategy of encouraging a general feeling of conspiracy and mistrust of the establishment that hopefully directs viewers to GOODF with their £7 clutched tightly in their hands.

One might argue that Tom would present a more believable case if he could decide what his argument actually is. I'm not sure and in any case he is clearly incapable of making such a decision and probably doesn't even see the need. I am sure he just hopes that by throwing up every conceivable (and inconceivable) argument, one will stick.

[wanglepin]

I hope Tom Crawford had the sense to insist on a "no win no fee" agreement.

This is why I believe these videos are more to do with convincing Tom Crawford he has won than they are to convince anyone else. They want their fees.
Don't pay them Tom. You have spent enough on these leeches as it is. Taylor alone has knocked up a bar slate big enough to cover the roof of Wembley Stadium. So make them take it all the way for review and revise on your behalf. Then tell them to sue you for it.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tom has spoken:

Re: THE JUDGMENT EXPLAINED BOOM!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#
Postby tommc » Wed May 27, 2015 8:42 am

Noisytone wrote:
We want solutions mate not arguments we know its fucked up and wrong when people realise we have to PROVE were the lender then the problem will start getting solved or at least put up one fuckin hell of a fight . Toms situation was and is all down to arrears regardless of the peripheral arguments and shit thats going on and technical arguments .
Regards T

Hi Noisytone,

I agree we want solutions, but I was in there arena their rules and poor old Karl Lentz has not helped anyone in court as far as I know, so as they say in the song I did my way.

You are so wrong there is no arrears and Godmark confirmed it, you cannot get a possession for property for a debt only arrears and once again there is none.

Tom

What a sad deluded old fool.




http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WV2xnB4WrU

[JonnyL]

One thought; is this vexatious litigation by proxy? Given that Ebert cannot bring a legal action himself without leave of the court, in a case where this "convicted" vexatious litigant is clearly driving a 3rd party cannot the court sit up and take notice?

To whom would one complain?

Good point

[vampireLOREN]

Tom has spoken:

Re: THE JUDGMENT EXPLAINED BOOM!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#
Postby tommc » Wed May 27, 2015 8:42 am

Noisytone wrote:
We want solutions mate not arguments we know its fucked up and wrong when people realise we have to PROVE were the lender then the problem will start getting solved or at least put up one fuckin hell of a fight . Toms situation was and is all down to arrears regardless of the peripheral arguments and shit thats going on and technical arguments .
Regards T

Hi Noisytone,

I agree we want solutions, but I was in there arena their rules and poor old Karl Lentz has not helped anyone in court as far as I know, so as they say in the song I did my way.

You are so wrong there is no arrears and Godmark confirmed it, you cannot get a possession for property for a debt only arrears and once again there is none.

Tom

What a sad deluded old fool.


Tom has been completely EBERTISED (which is like Lobotomised without any discernible improvement), Tom and Sue will soon be walking into " the broad sunlit uplands". Ebert is a card, never in the field of human litigation was so much drivel spouted by one old man.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WV2xnB4WrU

[wanglepin]

poor old Karl Lentz has not helped anyone in court as far as I know,

And Ebert and Taylor have, have they? Not to mention king goofer Mark Haining Ceylon?
This is why my sympathy for this idiot ran out ages ago.

[Normal Wisdom]

Tom has spoken:

Re: THE JUDGMENT EXPLAINED BOOM!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#
Postby tommc » Wed May 27, 2015 8:42 am

Noisytone wrote:
We want solutions mate not arguments we know its fucked up and wrong when people realise we have to PROVE were the lender then the problem will start getting solved or at least put up one fuckin hell of a fight . Toms situation was and is all down to arrears regardless of the peripheral arguments and shit thats going on and technical arguments .
Regards T

Hi Noisytone,

I agree we want solutions, but I was in there arena their rules and poor old Karl Lentz has not helped anyone in court as far as I know, so as they say in the song I did my way.

You are so wrong there is no arrears and Godmark confirmed it, you cannot get a possession for property for a debt only arrears and once again there is none.

Tom

What a sad deluded old fool.




http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WV2xnB4WrU

He says there are no arrears and none when the Order of Possession was requested or granted. Why did he not say this during the hearing? It's all pointing to another attempt to appeal just to waste more time.

[guilty]

Here is Eberts forensic examination. It's the document that was 'read out' on the latest video.

https://www.facebook.com/download/45540 ... ldmine.odt

[Bones]

Sorry for the length of this post - this needs to be said

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 56#p388621

Hi Noisytone,

I agree we want solutions, but I was in there arena their rules and poor old Karl Lentz has not helped anyone in court as far as I know, so as they say in the song I did my way.

You are so wrong there is no arrears and Godmark confirmed it, you cannot get a possession for property for a debt only arrears and once again there is none.

Tom

I think Tom has now completely lost the plot, if he had not before.

Ebert argues that there are no arrears has they have been capitalised and that B&B can't get possession for capital (he is saying that B&B can't seek possession based on Tom not paying back the £45,000)

• The judge says that the arrears have been capitalised, and capitalised arrears are not an arrear. This means that they are claiming the arrears as a capital. Therefore the bank cannot take a claim against you – the claim against you is illegal. They are claiming the arrears as capital – this is an equity issue. You haven’t any arrears, and possession can only be taken on arrears. He made it clear that they acted illegally.

• So he’s saying that the possession proceedings are not valid because the arrears have been capitalised and you can only take possession on the arrears and not on the capital. It’s a capital debt; there are no arrears. It’s a bombshell what you have got here. He writes clearly, if it’s a capital debt you can’t issue possession proceedings.

• So he’s saying that when they now take proceedings, its capitalised - the bank is asking for the full amount including the arrears. But if there are no arrears, the proceedings are not valid at all. And you paid all the arrears and if there are no arrears then possession proceedings are not valid – that’s what he writes. The proceedings were brought on the basis of failure to make mortgage payments. But you paid everything. There is no order for possession. There was one because you had arrears but that was suspended – they gave you time to sort it out. So he confirms that if the facts are, as we know, that the arrears were paid, so the proceedings are illegal.

Now this is what the judge actually said and it is not written in some strange foreign language but in good old plain simple english. It bears no relation whatsoever to anything claimed by Mr Ebert

In terms of capitislation

42. The statements of account may be significant in that Bradford & Bingley conceded that from time to time there has been capitislation of arrears. Six such capitalisations are listed for the main account the last being in December 2006. On the £5,000 loan there were three capitalisations the last being in December 1996.

Tom, Ceylon, Guy Taylor, two Michaels and of course Mr Ebert - The last capitislation took place in December 2006. I guess I am left to state the obvious for their benefit - any arrears accrued after December 2006 were not capitalised.

In terms of the arrears

The Decision to Stop Payments in September 2013

45. In September 2013 the Crawfords stopped making payments to Bradford & Bingley. This was while the possession order on his home was suspended on condition that he made the current monthly payments. That decision was taken, according to Mr Crawford, because by then they had reached the end of the twenty-five year mortgage term and felt that they had no continuing liability to make any further payments.

Tom, Ceylon, Guy Taylor, two Michaels and of course Mr Ebert - When Tom stopped making payments in September 2013, arrears started ti accrue. As confirmed above, these were never capitalised

52. Bradford & Bingley’s case is remarkably simple. They say that:-

When the possession claim was commenced in August 2012 the
Crawfords were at least three months in arrears on payments. In fact no
payment had been received since February 2012. The fact of arrears at
date of issue and hearing is accepted. That gave Bradford & Bingley


Tom, Ceylon, Guy Taylor, two Michaels and of course Mr Ebert - Tom didn't make any payments in 2012 for at least 6 months. These arrears were never capitalised, as the last capitalisation was in 2006. (6 years before this period of arrears)

The judge clearly confirmed these facts

89. What Bradford & Bingley cannot do is rely upon previously capitalised arrears in this possession claim. They are not doing so. The last capitalisation was in December 2006. These proceedings were brought on the basis of failure to make mortgage payments in 2012.

He goes on to say

92. However none of this helps Mr Crawford in relation to possession. The entitlement to possession is triggered by arrears amounting to two monthly instalments and no-one suggests that such qualifying arrears did not exist both at the time the claim was issued and on the date of the Order

99. The order under appeal is a mortgage possession order. As I have indicated in paragraph 50 above, once there are qualifying arrears (two months instalments) Bradford & Bingley is entitled to possession. There was no dispute that there were qualifying arrears.

And finally

104. The Order that I make is that permission to appeal out of time is granted but permission to appeal is refused. The suspension of execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted.

The judge could have refused the application to appeal on the basis that it was out of time, meaning that he did not have to consider any of the other points argued by Tom. It would have been a simple, no you are out of time.

However, whilst it was out of time, he allowed the appeal to be heard. After hearing all of Tom's arguments he refused Tom permission to appeal.

Tom, Ceylon, Guy Taylor, two Michaels and of course Mr Ebert - This means Tom lost, it also means all your ideas and claims about the law were found to be wrong. That is proving to be a very hard pill for these idiots to swallow.

The judge even takes the time to explain the above

Extension of Time for Appeal

18. This appeal is being attempted nearly two and a half years after the original possession order was made. Mr Crawford needs to apply for permission to appeal out of time. That application faces considerable difficulties. It would have to be considered by applying the three stage test for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Denton v White [2014] 1 WLR 3926.

19. It seems inescapable that the breach of the time limit is serious and significant. Mr Crawford’s advanced reason for delay is that he was unaware of certain statutory provisions which he feels may assist him. That might be difficult to advance as a good reason. In terms of the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and the need to enforce compliance with the rules, Mr Crawford may face an uphill struggle here too.

20. However on behalf of Bradford & Bingley Miss Sandells asks me to grant permission out of time. It is not the ground upon which she seeks to fight this battle. Whilst of course the question of permission to appeal out of time and of relief from sanctions is one for me, it was my concern that Mr Crawford might be subject to a serious injustice which led me to suggest this route to this hearing in the first place. In the particular circumstances of this case I am of the view that the over-riding objective, being an essential part of the mix of factors for consideration in the third stage of Denton, requires that permission to appeal out of time be granted.


Tom, Ceylon, Guy Taylor, two Michaels and of course Mr Ebert - In plain English, you were all wrong and Tom lost.

[Bones]

poor old Karl Lentz has not helped anyone in court as far as I know,

And Ebert and Taylor have, have they? Not to mention king goofer Mark Haining Ceylon?
This is why my sympathy for this idiot ran out ages ago.

These three wise monkey's couldn't even save their own homes

[Bones]

Here is Eberts forensic examination. It's the document that was 'read out' on the latest video.

https://www.facebook.com/download/45540 ... ldmine.odt

104. The Order that I make is that permission to appeal out of time is granted but permission to appeal is refused. The suspension of execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted.

• So he has confused you, on the basis of assumption. He’s saying there is a point, there is this, but he didn’t have evidence – so its rubbish. But then what he says next:- ‘The suspension of the execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted.’ Now after I went through with you, after I read everything, let me tell you, even what you dreamed, in your dreams, yes, and everybody will say “…blah, corruption…”, the word ‘execution’ is important. He hasn’t got a warrant – let me finish my point – you know I’m looking outside the box.

The warrant must identify all the questions or all this assumption. The warrant should be written, must be written – the amount, how much paid, how much not paid, and all the accounts attached. And you know the warrant looks zero zero zero debt. Aaaah, you see how beautiful it is? And he agreed that he hasn’t got the warrant; he didn’t set aside the warrant. He admitted that the order he dealt with was a suspended order. A suspended order you have to look at what are the conditions.

Are you in breach of the conditions? Then they have to make a new order, anyhow. A possession order must be in date. He didn’t have this. He’s stated clearly that its suspended. Did he look into the conditions? Have they been fulfilled or not? His only consideration for the whole proceeding that can take place is two months in arrears, not the capital, nothing – capital is not a possession issue.

Does he say it clearly? Does he say that the possession is based on two month’s arrears? Can you prove that the two months has been paid? Yes.So what do you want more with that? Now you understand why she’s not coming to court? Because he can take her to the cleaners if he gets hold of her, do you understand? He can convert her ‘unsatisfactory’ to ‘a lie’. Or he can convert it to ‘inaccurate’, ‘misleading’ or ‘false’. Even ‘inaccurate’ is contempt of court. So therefore she’s not coming to court, and she does not want to oppose any point which he made in this decision. And she’s not even asking for costs. She can’t because she’s lost it.

She’s lost it in a big way, and to prevent the embarrassment, she’s simply not coming. But now you’ve got the answer to all your questions. And in answer to your question about what to do when you go to court for the handing down of the judgement, I’ll tell you what to do, and if you change it, you’ll bury yourself. You tell all the people they don’t have to come; it’s a waste of time. You should put your post up because people will come for nothing. Now, when you come to court, you walk in, and sit on your place.

The judge will come in, and say ‘Good morning’, and will say ‘I’m handing down the judgement. I’m going to make the order which I specified’ or whatever it is. And you know already what the order is – he wrote it. And he’ll ask you ‘Have you got anything to say, Mr Crawford?’ You stand up, and say ‘Thank you very much, my lord. You gave a fantastic judgement; you identified all the problems which we went through precisely in the last ten years. Thanks, bye.’

[letissier14]

Latest video re: crowdfunding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... kfrHrJqtCA

[Bones]

Latest video re: crowdfunding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... kfrHrJqtCA

We won our case (no you didn't) and they won't be coming, but if they do come we will know they are the worst criminals

Who is writing this script ????

The part 2 video clarifies that we won it (no it shows that Mr Ebert is making things up as he goes along and completely disregarding what the judge actually said)

[daveBeeston]

I retract my previous theory after watching the 2nd Video..
Its well... im not sure how to describe it words fail me...


Regarding crowdfuding why would they need that if they won and how can they justify asking people for money for someone who lied through his teeth(will they lie on the crowdfunding page as to the need for the money)?

Makes you wonder how far they will go and how low they will sink(im not sure there is much more to go before the bottom of the barrell is being scraped).

[guilty]

Ebert says, in his forensic examination:

...we start at number 49 as the previous paragraphs are accentually dealing mainly with the history.

Ah yes. But it is very important history.

[IDIOT]

If TC was handed all the money he owed on a plate would he accept it and pay what is due or would he carry on with this absurdity?

Latest video confirms.

[JonnyL]

Not long before they accuse El Nino of been behind this. I see EW has outed 'a spy' in the ranks, Danny Bamping is accussed of being financed by the banks to disrupt their agenda!!! This is what happens when people become the focus of attention, EW and Wes Ahmed are notorious for doing public hatchet jobs on those that don't recycle their bile. Not long now before the fresh prince gets outed as 'Agent Ady'. They'll end up a 10 strong bunch of paranoid curtain twitchers.

[PeanutGallery]

One thought; is this vexatious litigation by proxy? Given that Ebert cannot bring a legal action himself without leave of the court, in a case where this "convicted" vexatious litigant is clearly driving a 3rd party cannot the court sit up and take notice?

To whom would one complain?

I would think that an injunction would need to be brought to prevent Mr Ebert from dispensing any advice relating to repossession, court proceedings or the like to a third party in order to stop him (he probably wouldn't obey it - at least not until after his first period for contempt). I would suppose that the Law Society might be interested in doing this, if it was put to them that the methods suggested and arguments advanced by Ebert have neither a place in law or fact and using them causes harm because a litigant would waste their right of appeals with frivolity. I'd also frame the argument that allowing Ebert to continue to dispensing advice in the manner which he is, will clutter up the court system as pointless cases brought on his nonsensical views are heard. So therefore it is in both the interest of justice and the courts that Ebert's services be curtailed. Trading Standards might also be interested if he is charging for his service.

Of course if the Law Society or courts weren't interested in bringing this themselves it would need to be brought by someone who has suffered loss as a result of following Ebert's advice. Sadly I would doubt that those who did would be in a position where they would be able to bring a court action against him, the most likely head for this would be negligence, and if someone did that would be a very interesting trial and would likely create new case law in the field.