The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[Skeleton]

the crawfords are full of BS, they get a order from the high court (which any one can get) telling the county court to give them a copy of all paper work,

So the one Amanda Pike promised to show (ages ago now) is an entirely different bundle "case file" to the one Guy Taylor and Brian Gerrish have in their possession in this video concerning Tom Crawford ?
18:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6WkCBm ... 9428#t=409

Franks referring to the order that Tom got on a single bit of paper but stamped by the High Court, that gave the Crawfords permission to get copies of any paperwork to do with their case from the County Court. Paperwork they already had, including the warrant. Tom twisted that bit of paper into the High Court ordering the County Court to produce the warrant.

[BlueBurmese]

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for ... 07025.html

The house is tiny, and it's a shit-tip. Imagine having five adults living there (that was the situation until 2010 when Craig moved out, dunno when Amanda left) as well as two/three drooling, moulting, shitting hounds, with the last works to the place done 25 or so years ago. Not pretty. Whoever bought the place for £55k has probably just chucked out the carpets and other junk, filled in a few holes, and given it a damn good clean to get rid of the smell of dog and old people. Doing the bare minimum and flipping it seems to be the sensible solution given the work that would need doing. This would probably include:

New kitchen
New bathroom
Sorting out flooring and carpets throughout
Rewiring
Sorting out the windows - there's a chance that they aren't double glazed and even if they are, I suspect the units would be failing by now
Sorting out the conservatory - probably the same issue as with the windows
Major tidying up of the gardens
Fixing any damage

Thinking about it, if the above is needed then there's no way they would have got near £100k for it selling normally. On the plus side, because it's tiny, it will obviously cost less to sort out than a more average sized place.

Good luck with getting £70k+ for it.

[Footloose52]

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for ... 07025.html

This would probably include:

Sorting out flooring and carpets throughout

There is a flooring specialist very familiar with this property - I wonder if he would quote for that part of the work

[wanglepin]

Franks referring to the order that Tom got on a single bit of paper but stamped by the High Court,

I am refereing to the "paperwork" Amanda Pike was on about telling us and the world that what they had got from the court would prove them to "have been right all along and that had to be kept secrete for the time being, but would show us all "very soon once it had been gone over by their legal team".. I still cannot find that post but it was definitely posted here from Amanda's face book page I believe.

[PeanutGallery]

the crawfords are full of BS, they get a order from the high court (which any one can get) telling the county court to give them a copy of all paper work, they claimed it was a order from one of the highest court judges, a master, who believed they had won, given them a order making the police hand over paper work, and by refusing to do it at the side of the road, proves it was all a con, they twist everything to suit them,

It wasn't actually an order from the High Court, it was a request from the High Court that the county court should make available all paperwork, which is entirely the Crawfords right to have and which the County Court would have given them, in fact chances are they already had it but due to the ministrations of Ebert and Taylor had been convinced that something crucial had been kept back.

The Crawfords twisted the request from the High Court into a High Court order, which I don't think it actually was. It was likely a complete waste of everyone's time, which is pretty much par for the course with Tom and co's legal/lawful wranglings.

They also got, another, copy of the warrant. It was probably the same warrant that Tom originally posted a video about. Amanda posted a crowing message on Facebook about finally having the "Unicorn" warrant and that it had more holes in it than Tom's story (or something similar). They did, as others have also stated, claim that they would show the warrant after they had their advisers tell them what it said invent some pseudolegal codswallop that would fool the suckers and keep the Crawfords feeling like victims.

Apparently even for the mighty minds of Ebert and Taylor coming up with said codswallop has proved to be harder than normal for them, as even with the warrant they can not argue against it. Of course the fact that the warrant had been shown to the Crawfords, rather makes the actions of the Rooftop Six even more pointless, the court did show the warrant, it's the Crawfords who have chosen not to share it with others. I would wonder at what they might be trying to hide, if the answer wasn't so bloody obvious. The only thing Tom, Amanda, Craig, Sue and their advisers are trying to hide both from themselves and their supporters is the truth of the situation.

[fat frank]

the crawfords are full of BS, they get a order from the high court (which any one can get) telling the county court to give them a copy of all paper work, they claimed it was a order from one of the highest court judges, a master, who believed they had won, given them a order making the police hand over paper work, and by refusing to do it at the side of the road, proves it was all a con, they twist everything to suit them,

It wasn't actually an order from the High Court, it was a request from the High Court that the county court should make available all paperwork, which is entirely the Crawfords right to have and which the County Court would have given them, in fact chances are they already had it but due to the ministrations of Ebert and Taylor had been convinced that something crucial had been kept back.

The Crawfords twisted the request from the High Court into a High Court order, which I don't think it actually was. It was likely a complete waste of everyone's time, which is pretty much par for the course with Tom and co's legal/lawful wranglings.

They also got, another, copy of the warrant. It was probably the same warrant that Tom originally posted a video about. Amanda posted a crowing message on Facebook about finally having the "Unicorn" warrant and that it had more holes in it than Tom's story (or something similar). They did, as others have also stated, claim that they would show the warrant after they had their advisers tell them what it said invent some pseudolegal codswallop that would fool the suckers and keep the Crawfords feeling like victims.

Apparently even for the mighty minds of Ebert and Taylor coming up with said codswallop has proved to be harder than normal for them, as even with the warrant they can not argue against it. Of course the fact that the warrant had been shown to the Crawfords, rather makes the actions of the Rooftop Six even more pointless, the court did show the warrant, it's the Crawfords who have chosen not to share it with others. I would wonder at what they might be trying to hide, if the answer wasn't so bloody obvious. The only thing Tom, Amanda, Craig, Sue and their advisers are trying to hide both from themselves and their supporters is the truth of the situation.

I was trying to show the way they twist everything to suit them,

[Pox]

Franks referring to the order that Tom got on a single bit of paper but stamped by the High Court,

I am refereing to the "paperwork" Amanda Pike was on about telling us and the world that what they had got from the court would prove them to "have been right all along and that had to be kept secrete for the time being, but would show us all "very soon once it had been gone over by their legal team".. I still cannot find that post but it was definitely posted here from Amanda's face book page I believe.

I've had a look for it also, but can't find it - but I do remember seeing it somewhere.

[fat frank]

I got a screen shot of the high court paper work, but don't know how to upload pics

[wanglepin]

Amanda posted a crowing message on Facebook about finally having the "Unicorn" warrant and that it had more holes in it than Tom's story (or something similar).

That sounds like it Peanut.

[fat frank]

the crawfords had the warrant, said they would realise it to prove what fraud happened, now they refuse to realise it, so every keeps asking to see the warrant

[wanglepin]

the crawfords had the warrant, said they would realise it to prove what fraud happened, now they refuse to realise it, so every keeps asking to see the warrant

That would be this one I suppose Frank.
This video he says he “received a warrant for possession through the post”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quV3B4Kwsw4

He also made another video telling us he was woken by "terrorists in the early hours" who were trying to issue a warrant.

[fat frank]

they also wanted a other warrant, that allows the bailiffs, to evict them, as they believed only HCEO could evict and the bailiff must be named on it

when sue was being evicted, they claimed they wasn't shown a warrant then sue said "it doesn't even have a stamp or a signature" not bad for a warrant they claim they never seen

[Skeleton]

they also wanted a other warrant, that allows the bailiffs, to evict them, as they believed only HCEO could evict and the bailiff must be named on it

when sue was being evicted, they claimed they wasn't shown a warrant then sue said "it doesn't even have a stamp or a signature" not bad for a warrant they claim they never seen

Thats on this video about 12:10 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wsXnyT7nKc

[Pox]

Some more dud mortgage advice over on GOOFY -

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 09&t=92765

Do they all put paranoia powder in their early morning cuppa?

[NYGman]

they also wanted a other warrant, that allows the bailiffs, to evict them, as they believed only HCEO could evict and the bailiff must be named on it

when sue was being evicted, they claimed they wasn't shown a warrant then sue said "it doesn't even have a stamp or a signature" not bad for a warrant they claim they never seen

Thats on this video about 12:10 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wsXnyT7nKc

I think their position is that without a Stamp or a Signature, it isn't a valid Warrant, and they are asking to see the valid warrant, which they claim has never been produced, as every warrant they have seen, to date, have not been valid, and thus they have yet to see the valid warrant that evicted them and took their house. At least that is my guess as to why they keep asking for the same document they already have, over and over again. I think they are expecting something new each time.

[Normal Wisdom]

the crawfords had the warrant, said they would realise it to prove what fraud happened, now they refuse to realise it, so every keeps asking to see the warrant

That would be this one I suppose Frank.
This video he says he “received a warrant for possession through the post”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quV3B4Kwsw4

He also made another video telling us he was woken by "terrorists in the early hours" who were trying to issue a warrant.

The problem is that Tom doesn't know the first thing about warrants. I don't think for a second that what he got through the post was the Warrant of Possession. I am sure it was a notice of eviction which we have previously been told by someone apparently close to the case was an N54a form. I stand to be corrected but I don't believe the bailiffs or the court would routinely post a copy of the warrant along with / instead of a notice of eviction.

The order that Tom obtained from the High Court requested that the County Court make copies of the Order and Warrant of Possession and any other relevant documents available to him. Once he got round to presenting the request to the County Court in the proper manner instead of Guy Taylor et al standing about in Fearn Close and demanding that the Police go and get it for them then he would have received the Order and warrant of Possession for what I am sure was the first time and only time.

It was inevitable that would allege that the Warrant wasn't correct but that happens in nearly every eviction case and has never done anyone much lasting good.

[grixit]

Some more dud mortgage advice over on GOOFY -

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 09&t=92765

Do they all put paranoia powder in their early morning cuppa?

Homeowner: I could use a little stretching of my repayment schedule.

Bank: Sure, we can help you with that. We just need some information on your current financial situation.

Homeowner: What, i'm not falling for that!

WTH?

[Jeffrey]

The problem is that Tom doesn't know the first thing about warrants.

Does any layman actually know anything about warrants either? I'm willing to wager most lawyers don't either.

All I need to know as a citizen is to not do anything that might lead to a warrant being issued for me. Trying to wiggle out of stuff by arguing the warrant was written in the incorrect font isn't a viable strategy.

[Normal Wisdom]

The problem is that Tom doesn't know the first thing about warrants.

Does any layman actually know anything about warrants either? I'm willing to wager most lawyers don't either.

All I need to know as a citizen is to not do anything that might lead to a warrant being issued for me. Trying to wiggle out of stuff by arguing the warrant was written in the incorrect font isn't a viable strategy.

I know a lot more about Orders and Warrants of Possession and notices of eviction than I used to and it wasn't hard to find out enough to know that what Tom Crawford et al were saying was junk.

[PeanutGallery]

Logic would dictate that the power behind a warrant comes from how it is made, namely by a court. A typical response to a warrant carried by a Bailiff is "Anyone could print that off the internet". That statement is of course wrong, while anyone could do that, the question at hand is whether the Bailiff actually did? That can be verified and verified quite simply, by checking with the court in question if the warrant was actually issued by them.

If it was issued by a court, then the warrant is very obviously a court warrant. However they never pursue this line of inquiry and instead focus on imagine deficiencies in or on the paperwork such that it could never meet their exacting demands. If Taylor was presented with a warrant sealed in the manner he claims it should be, the seal would be in the wrong place or the wrong sort of wax or the impression wasn't clear enough. But all that argument is pointless because the strength of a warrant doesn't come from the paper on which it is printed but from where it has been issued.

I would also suggest that even if Tom, Taylor and Ebert were presented with a warrant crafted to meet their imagined ideals of what a warrant should look like (and frankly IF the courts were forging warrants then you'd think they'd at least make them look like actual real warrants, in the same way that IF someone were to forge a five pound note they wouldn't copy one from a monopoly set) they would still come up with a litany of how it was actually deficient, the seal would be in the wrong place, it would have used the wrong colour wax, the signature wouldn't be clear enough, the signature would be too clear and therefore NOT actually a signature. You can't win arguments with these people because they don't have the acumen to recognise where they might be mistaken and their grasp of what should be is nebulous at best.