The Second Battle of Crawford's Castle, a Nottingham Farce...

[NG3]

You'll know if you've found the right location because you'll remember another clue when you look at it...

[Dr. Caligari]

I read all that and the only thing I took from that is that someone really named their kid anal ? Bet they had it hard at school

It could have been worse. What if their family name was "Fisher"?

[NG3]

Let's see how sincere those who goad them on are. Will Ceylon stick to his guns when it comes time to appear in court, I mean, he promotes all this lose the name the courts have no jurisdiction stuff, doesn't he? Oh, wait, when it's his cock on the block he can't back pedal fast enough. And yet they don't see it?

You mean like he did nothing when it kicked off in mickeys court case, or how he retreated to the bridge when the woman they were harassing on the tow path walked towards the court building and authority figures, or were you referring to his loss of nerve in his own hearing?

Trouble for him is the slippy type always slip in the end, and when they do they tend to find people have long memories.

[rosy]

According to Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NG_postcode_area only postcodes NG1 - NG17 have the post town Nottingham. Of course, Tom et al may not have given the address to B&B correctly, so an NG2x postcode can't be ruled out. I think the postcode is NGxx xRR or xKR.

[ArthurWankspittle]

According to Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NG_postcode_area only postcodes NG1 - NG17 have the post town Nottingham. Of course, Tom et al may not have given the address to B&B correctly, so an NG2x postcode can't be ruled out. I think the postcode is NGxx xRR or xKR.

Someone from out of the area may assume NGx is Nottingham anyway.

[IDIOT]

It could have been worse. What if their family name was "Fisher"?

I see what you did there

[Bones]

Sorry for length of this post. This needs to be said


It's official Amanda is batshit crazy

Family were fighting bank to keep home they fully paid for. Bank changed contract

From the judgement

26. Fifthly, in 1999 Bradford & Bingley offered to move the Crawfords to a repayment mortgage but the Crawfords refused. This is important because Mr Crawford’s case has been that Bradford & Bingley changed his mortgage to repayment without his agreement. Today the position has been clarified. It is clear that Bradford & Bingley offered to convert the mortgage to repayment and it is agreed that Mr Crawford refused this. However Bradford & Bingley did not unilaterally change the type of mortgage the Crawfords had. I observe that in many ways the refusal by Mr Crawford to take up a repayment mortgage has been the source of this problem.

80. However at the possession hearing the claim was advanced simply on the basis of more than two months arrears. I have looked at the witness statement of Michelle Tunney in support. It makes no representations that Mr Crawford consented to a change in mortgage terms. Indeed, as observed above, one of the agreed facts in this case is that both sides accept that there was no change in the mortgage. I can find no basis for saying that any statements of the nature identified by Mr Crawford were made to the court.

82. This is dealt with by what has gone before. As I have already observed a key mutually agreed fact in this case is that the Crawfords’ mortgage did not change. Sadly it would have been so much better for them if it had.

family didnt know and gave no permission to change bank promise to fix their mistake but didnt the bank admitted in court and without familys consent changed contract to interest only.

Changed to interest only ? Really Amanda ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx57G54gkWQ

Look at 8:26



MORTGAGE TYPE: Endowment Interest Only

Family paid approx 130k on a 41k mortgage.

"Family" only paid the interest for the money that they borrowed. They, including you over looked and continue to over look that the "Family" also had to repay the capital being the actual amount borrowed.

As was clearly explained in the judgement

72. The way in which endowment mortgages worked was for the borrower to borrow capital from the lender and pay interest on that advance during the mortgage term. The borrower would also takeout an endowment life assurance policy as a means of repaying the capital at the end of the term. Policy premiums would be paid monthly to the life assurance company by the borrower although the benefit of the policy is assigned to the lender. After twenty five years of the borrower paying into the policy, it has acquired a value hopefully sufficient to repay the original loan.

Went to court got a courpt judge. Judge wrote out a fake judgment 104 paragraphs long! Full of crap. Didn't put alot of information in, twisted stuff and lied in it.

The judge twisted stuff and lied in it you say ? Hold on your Dad said that the judgement said he WON !!!1!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx57G54gkWQ
Amanda look at 7:27



In case you missed it

See that payment on 23 July 1992 for £178.75 shown in the statements your Dad had




From the judgement

30. Bradford & Bingley have information from Phoenix Group (successors to Royal Life) indicating that their records show that endowment policy premium payments were received from the account of S A Crawford (Mrs Crawford) up to and including 25 June 1991. There is no record of any payments thereafter and the policy was surrendered on 22nd July 1992 with a surrender payment of £178.75. There is a credit to the Crawford’s mortgage account of £178.75 on 23rd July 1992.

Also writing in a format that was not easily understood

It was written in plain English. The judge even went so far as to dumb it down as much as he could, so that people such as the Crawford Clan could understand

100. Mr Crawford has raised a number of points which he says should ground an appeal. I have scrutinised the points made by Mr Crawford in this hearing with care. Due to the public interest I have attempted above to set out as simply as I can the law which applies in this case and my analysis of Mr Crawford’s legal submissions.

Sadly the Judge, did not take into account the Crawford Clan's inability to understand plain english.

Then refused to correct it. Family did win case as fraud was proven.

No Amanda, there was no Fraud proven, you are just making this up.

From the Judgement

Fraud

75. Fraud in relation to the endowment policy is raised in Mr Crawford’s skeleton argument albeit under the heading “Redudiation”. It is suggested that Bradford & Bingley fraudulently sold the Crawfords an endowment policy with the assurance that it would pay off the amount owing at the end of the term and that this assurance proved to be false in July 2013.

76. This appears to be an allegation that the failure of the endowment policy is a fraud by Bradford & Bingley. It is common knowledge that many endowment mortgages were sold in the 1980s in which the endowment policy failed to achieve a maturity value sufficient to discharge the original capital sum advanced. However I do not see how that then unexpected eventuality would be a fraud by the mortgagee. In any event the problem in the Crawfords’ case is not that the policy’s maturity value in 2013 was insufficient to pay of the capital advanced. The problem was that there was no policy.

77. Mr Crawford also alleges that the possession order was obtained by fraud. He says that fraudulent statements were made to the court about the validity of the mortgage documents relied upon. During the hearing I was anxious to ascertain what fraudulent statements Mr Crawford was referring to.

78. Mr Crawford told me that Bradford & Bingley had falsely claimed that he had consented to a change in the mortgage terms; that they falsely claimed that he had agreed to a part endowment, part capital and interest mortgage.

79. That has not been Bradford & Bingley’s claim. Their case is that this started out as an endowment (interest only) mortgage and stayed that way precisely because Mr Crawford would not change to repayment. There are indeed references to “part endowment, part capital and repayment”. Those references are potentially confusing but arise out of there being two loan accounts – the £41,800 advance commenced as an endowment mortgage and the £5,000 commenced as repayment. Thus the charge did secure loans advanced on different repayment bases.

80. However at the possession hearing the claim was advanced simply on the basis of more than two months arrears. I have looked at the witness statement of Michelle Tunney in support. It makes no representations that Mr Crawford consented to a change in mortgage terms. Indeed, as observed above, one of the agreed facts in this case is that both sides accept that there was no change in the mortgage. I can find no basis for saying that any statements of the nature identified by Mr Crawford were made to the court.

Bank with great assistance from police stole house at a time the mother of the owner of the house had died and was not yet buried. And dog was dying. Lady of the house then violently evicted (abused assaulted and robbed) dog ended up get put down next day.

Thanks to the video posted by your Brother

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEbWVkEsw9o

We know that even before the eviction the dog was due to be put down the next day.

Listen to 14:55

Yours Daddy's words Amanda

"We are trying to hold him off so he doesn't have to be put down today, but tomorrow"

So the Dog being put down the next day, had nothing whatsoever to do we the eviction.

All families worldly goods stolen (they since have got back some large items. All memorabilia destroyed taken to the tip)

Taken to the tip at the "Family's" request

no paperwork for coming on for 7 years now has ever been shown not even in court to prove banks claime.

By Tommy's own admission

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.

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

a) As a mortgagee they are entitled to realise their security by taking
possession of the property and an order for sale when the total debt
becomes due.
b) Under clause 14 of the mortgage terms the total debt becomes
immediately repayable if a sum equal to two instalments of the monthly
payments becomes due and remains unpaid.

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.

I will connect the dots for the Crawford Clan and their "expert" legal advisors. As Tom admmited, he stopped making payments in September 2013. Therefore, if there weren't already in arrears, they would have been in two months arrears by the end of November 2013. As such by the end of November 2013, the qualifying arrears triggered the entitlement to possession. Just what documentation are you wanting to see ? Your own Dad admitted the above facts.

Small group of extreamly sick people then begin relentless campaign to attempt to tell people family lied (they didnt) alot of these people stoop to low levels. The trolling begins when they wake and ends when they sleep their soul mission to make people hate the family who have never hurt anyone. They are obsessed and have sucked in afew people (who'll likely end up feeling very stupid once this is over) but not as many as trolls would like. all very strange behaviour from alot of people who claim to hate banks and courpt courts. Family still fighting . The end.....for now smile emoticon

[Bungle]

Excellent post Bones

[Bones]

Excellent post Bones

Thanks, quite a few typo's which I will correct tomorrow. Got to go to bed now for work

[hanlons razor]

I may try to find a Quatloos hat and eye patch.

Try http://www.luvyababes.co.uk/mens-pirate.irc in the Victoria centre...

Also if it's magistrates or family court there's a handy canal immediately adjacent on which a raft or dingy could easily be sailed/rowed, unfortunately not so for crown court. Well not visibly anyway... Although I suppose a creative person could always hang a banner from the car park opposite.

[NG3]

I may try to find a Quatloos hat and eye patch.

Try http://www.luvyababes.co.uk/mens-pirate.irc in the Victoria centre...

Also if it's magistrates or family court there's a handy canal immediately adjacent on which a raft or dingy could easily be sailed/rowed.

That would be YouTube video of the year. I wonder if ginger will be covering it?

[YiamCross]

Sorry for length of this post. This needs to be said


It's official Amanda is batshit crazy

Family were fighting bank to keep home they fully paid for. Bank changed contract

From the judgement..... courpt courts. Family still fighting . The end.....for now smile emoticon

[/quote]

But what you failed to notice, the sting in the tail, is that the courts are courpt!

So none of the judgment counts and we the free men of this great country will rise up and arrest the police, jail the judiciary, hang the bankers, bring down the corrupt, sorry, courpt banks and we canll live happily ever after in a world of love and peace under the protection of the goddess of peace the lovely Amanda who will love and protect us in the way she has shown us is the right way to love and cherish. With a firm and unfair hand.

[littleFred]

Yeah, good post Bones. I would also address a particular point:

Small group of extreamly sick people then begin relentless campaign to attempt to tell people family lied (they didnt) alot of these people stoop to low levels.

Tom lied.

He lied about paying off the mortgage. He has known since 2013 that he hasn't paid the mortgage, but continues to claim that he has. Without showing any evidence he has paid it off because, of course, there is none.

He lied about B&B changing the mortgage. He knows they didn't. B&B knows they didn't. We all know they didn't.

He lied about the victory, when he knew it wasn't.

He lied about the bank committing fraud. He has never shown any evidence of fraud. "Fraud" is merely a synonym for "I don't like what they did".

He lied about the High Court order. He lied about what it said in the same post in which he included a scan of the order.

Perhaps Tom is so deluded that he believes his own lies, that he can't read the words written on the order he has scanned because they contradict his lies.

We all make mistakes. We all sometimes think something is true when it isn't. But Tom has done this too consistently, for too long, for these to be simple mistakes. They are lies.

Encouraging a liar doesn't help him. It reinforces his delusions. If his wife and children had said, hang on, Tom, are you really sure about this, Tom could now be sitting in his own home that he had fully paid for. If his friends Guy Taylor and Michael Waugh and Michael O'Dear and Gedaljahu Ebert hadn't encouraged his lies and added their own, Tom wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, his lies have seen criminal charges brought against 11 people.

And now Tom is embarking on a career that, doubtless, will include lying to people about their own mortgages. Perhaps he will be happy to see his lies lose people their homes, just like he lost his. Just like the people who lied to Tom lost theirs.

Does this brand me a fan of banks and courts? No. Does it brand me as a sick troll or shill? If these are people who tell the truth, then I'm happy with that. Because I don't want people to be suckered into Tom's lies and lose their homes.

[NG3]

Does this brand me a fan of banks and courts? No. Does it brand me as a sick troll or shill? If these are people who tell the truth, then I'm happy with that. Because I don't want people to be suckered into Tom's lies and lose their homes.

If rule #1 is thou shalt not listen to any other voice than ours, rule #2 is everyone but us is an enemy who supports everything we oppose.

Isolation and indoctrination

It makes a mind pliable

[littleFred]

I know what you mean, NG3, but it could be read the other way. I'm not dissing anyone who disagrees with me. I'm not saying my (or "our") voice is right, and that anyone who disagrees is an enemy. Heavens knows I am too often wrong.

But I am saying, emphatically, that liars who lose their own homes and then persuade other people to do likewise are the enemy of people who want to keep their own homes.

If someone is happy to lose their home (and thus £100,000 or so) in order to "stick it to the man", and knows this will happen, I have no problems with that. But people in financial difficulties who want to keep their home would be well advised to keep very far from liars like Tom, Guy, Michael, Michael and Gedaljahu.

[PeanutGallery]

Tom lied.

Perhaps Tom is so deluded that he believes his own lies, that he can't read the words written on the order he has scanned because they contradict his lies.

We all make mistakes. We all sometimes think something is true when it isn't. But Tom has done this too consistently, for too long, for these to be simple mistakes. They are lies.

Not only that but I think Tom has been lying to Sue, Craig, Amanda, Nicole, Betty just as much as the rest of us. A lot of children find it hard to accept that their parents have flaws, or that they make mistakes. The fact of the matter is that the story Amanda is telling now, is different to the one she told after the court hearing. I think her story has changed because her father has told her a new truth. I am in part reminded of the world Orwell created in 1984, when Winston Smith would change what history had recorded, it was accepted by the Proles without a thought. The Crawford children, would be the perfect Prole.

To an extent I think they are blinded by their emotional attachment to the issue, this means that if they accept that Ma and Pa lost the family ranch because Ma and Pa are blithering idiots who are now looking for a new village, they lose their own self image. They become the offspring of a laughing stock, the spawn of a joke (not a funny joke, a pathetic one). Equally maybe they just don't question what daddy tells them when they should. I was taught to question everything my parents told me, it made me inquisitive and taught me the value of credible sources.

Amanda can't admit to herself that Daddy lied, because then she'd know her father is full of **** and she cannot have that. She needs to live in her rabbit hole. Even though it's going to be constantly painful as she finds the cruelty of reality constantly eroding the fantasy her Daddy tells her.

The real problem, as LittleFred also points out is that Tom is using his failure to attract people to follow him, in the land of the sheep he's the Yudasgoat.

[NYGman]

With Tom becoming a new expert and all, and is looking to "help" people out, it got me wondering that if all the experts have lost their homes or properties doing the exact same thing each and every time, and have lost appeal after appeal, at what point does it click, that maybe the only possible outcome from following this advice is loss of home? Do they really expect at some point the courts will say, oh hang on, even though you didn't really pay what you owed, and you broke the provisions of your mortgage, because you know the law better than the court does, the court has no option but to give you your house back.

It really is like The wall will never move

At this rate we are going to have hundreds of experts, sharing their knowledge, that only has one obvious outcome, that they just don't seem to be able to see

[YiamCross]

Bones' and Littlefred's posts reposted on FaceBook in places they will be seen.

Actually, anyone wanting a taste of Amanda's tongue (mmm, not the best turn of phrase I suppose) should go visit and have a read of the comments under the post by Dave Wicher asking for the trolls to leave the Crawfords alone. Sorry, but no.

https://www.facebook.com/plonker27/post ... ment_reply

Or just a link to his page in case that one doesn't work for you as links to posts often don't

https://www.facebook.com/plonker27?fref=nf

[YiamCross]

A little bit off topic but since he's pledged his support to the Crawfords I thought I'd post this little gem of a video just to show how crazy some of these people are.

Dave Witcher on how the bible is the best book of law (I guess he'll be getting his slaves in soon then), how he's sending his registration documents back to the DVLA with all kinds of letters and declarations. Some even ecclesiastically sealed and others with a stamp on. Listen, guys, when you put a stamp on a document they have to sit up and take notice, it's got the queen's head on and they're dishonouring the queen otherwise.

https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvide ... e=55C42EB0

Mark Taylor but what happens about car tax ? and if police pull you as you not on DVLA
Like · 8 hrs

Matthew Harry Hoyle You refuse to contract with them.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. He's sending all his government id back, he's moving out of the public and into the private. He's collapsed the trust, he's him now. When the queen was coronated (sic) she swore to uphold this... Some good videos coming up soon I hope, maybe he will earn a thread of his own.

[Dr. Caligari]

Also if it's magistrates or family court there's a handy canal immediately adjacent on which a raft or dingy could easily be sailed/rowed,

In the U.S., the sovruns would be blathering about "admiralty law."