Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[The Observer]

I think Tom is past the point where he can realistically be expected to return. To do so would take away the only support network that remains in his world. He'd lose the only friends he has left, he'd be risking his family support and he'd have to accept that he managed to make what was a bad situation (which was not so terrible he could not recover) into a much worse one (from which the recovery will be arduous and draining). To accept that could easily be enough to send any one into a depression from which they could not recover.

Priest: What I meant was...consider the challenge.

Dr. Sanson Carrasco: Challenge?

Priest: Think what cleverness it would take to wean him from his madness.

Turn him from his course. To persuade him to come back home.

To bring him to see the same world?

Carrasco: Hmm. That is a challenge. Enormous. To work within his lunacy...

to cure him through the very terms that are his own.

- Man of La Mancha

[mufc1959]

Peanut, that is the best analysis of the Crawford situation I have read. It's spot on. There was a point when Tom & Sue could have salvaged something out of this situation, but once they crossed the woo line, there was no going back. Nothing anyone says will now convince them that they caused all this themselves.

[PeanutGallery]

On the contrary the psychology behind such scams and indeed the way it affects those who have fallen for those scams are precisely the sort of topic we should be discussing. It is notable that Ceylon and others have posted videos in which they show that they are suspicious and afraid of psychology and psychologists. My opinion is that they seek to denigrate psychology as a means of keeping people from peering behind the curtain and seeing the woo for what it is.

As such I don't think we can reliably discuss how people like Tom Crawford, Ebert and others wind up in the situation they are in without referencing the underlying psychology which in my opinion keeps them trapped within the woo as a defensive mechanism.

[arayder]

On the contrary the psychology behind such scams and indeed the way it affects those who have fallen for those scams are precisely the sort of topic we should be discussing. It is notable that Ceylon and others have posted videos in which they show that they are suspicious and afraid of psychology and psychologists. My opinion is that they seek to denigrate psychology as a means of keeping people from peering behind the curtain and seeing the woo for what it is.

As such I don't think we can reliably discuss how people like Tom Crawford, Ebert and others wind up in the situation they are in without referencing the underlying psychology which in my opinion keeps them trapped within the woo as a defensive mechanism.

I have frequently postulated that for folks like Crawford it is psychologically easier to convince themselves they are being messed over by the evil government/courts/banks than it is to accept responsibility for having driven themselves and their families to ruin.

Consequently has the stakes in the freeman verses government game get higher and higher the woo gets deeper and deeper.

[LocalResident]

I have frequently postulated that for folks like Crawford it is psychologically easier to convince themselves they are being messed over by the evil government/courts/banks than it is to accept responsibility for having driven themselves and their families to ruin.

Consequently has the stakes in the freeman verses government game get higher and higher the woo get deeper and deeper.

The thing I always have a bit of a problem with is even if the conspiracy is true/correct the actions they are taking are not going to work !.

i.e. Assume the banks are defrauding everyone with the help of the courts, and have the police on side.
You are not going to win by going to court!
You are really outgunned, and need to pay lip service while working on the revolution or something....

[PeanutGallery]

Now just to highlight the lack of critical thinking that abounds over on GOODF, Society of the Spectacle has posted this:

I cant be sure, but I posted a video of Tom's case to the company Right Move, who had 3 Fearn Chase on their website.
It looks like they took it Down.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices ... Chase.html

Nothing listed for Sale.

Unfortunately for SoS (as he is sometimes called over there) he's incorrect, first and foremost he's linking to the wrong part of the site, an area which deals in house prices. I know he's incorrect because I just had a look myself and after a brief search, of the correct area, found the one time home of the Crawfords up for sale right here.

Toms house wasn't listed in the area SoS was looking at because it's not meant to be listed there. Either SoS knew this and chose to post misleading information, or he was easily confused and failed to double check by looking at the For Sale section, which is where you would expect to find properties that are currently for sale.

[PeanutGallery]

I have frequently postulated that for folks like Crawford it is psychologically easier to convince themselves they are being messed over by the evil government/courts/banks than it is to accept responsibility for having driven themselves and their families to ruin.

Consequently has the stakes in the freeman verses government game get higher and higher the woo get deeper and deeper.

The thing I always have a bit of a problem with is even if the conspiracy is true/correct the actions they are taking are not going to work !.

i.e. Assume the banks are defrauding everyone with the help of the courts, and have the police on side.
You are not going to win by going to court!
You are really outgunned, and need to pay lip service while working on the revolution or something....

To some extent it's a David and Goliath syndrome. They envisage themselves as David hurling their mighty pebbles at the giant Goliath. They think they will win for the same reason that David did, because they are the underdog, because everything is against them and because they've been told it's unlikely that they will win. If Tom didn't think he would win he would have given up, therefore he has to have a reason to keep fighting against the crushing walls of the encroaching reality. Truth is, if David did exist and if he did face off against Goliath, his win was more likely down to good fortune and the overconfidence of his opponent.

I don't doubt that he's been spoon fed things that will appease his ego and likely views himself as being a little man taking on the banks and who is about to give them a sound black eye. He is a mouse that roared, the old man from UP, the tenants of the building in Batteries not included, the rebel alliance from Star Wars, Adam Sandler's Waterboy, he's the perennial little guy who the media loves making into a heroic and noble figure.

He thinks he will win because 'stories' tell him he must win. He's ignored the advice to give up and it has cost him (admittedly I once ignored all legal advice and walked away with a settlement just under six figures, after the lawyers working for me had stopped, which only shows that lawyers aren't always right, of course the difference between our situations is I didn't go down the OPCA route and I didn't ask for help on GOODF and finally I had nothing to lose from risking the claim). The main problem with where Tom is now is that he will be convincing himself that "It's always darkest before the dawn" and that "It can't get much worse", the more 'bad things' that happen will only mean the sweeter his eventual victory will be.

He won't realise he has lost until it is far too late, he may not ever realise he lost. He may well see out his days expecting to suddenly be told he has won.

[arayder]

I have told this story before, so please forgive me if you have heard it. . .

When I was a kid playing baseball we had a kid on our team who always tried to make spectacular catches in the outfield on balls he should have fielded on one hop so as to hold the runner to a single. He would always miss the catch and the ball would roll to the outfield wall resulting in a triple or an inside the park home run.

The other outfielders started playing so as to cut off the ball after the kid missed it in order to try to stop the runner from getting two extra bases.

The kid got yelled at by the rest of us in the dugout and was eventually sent to the end of the bench where he complained about the unfairness of it all.

I think of that kid when I hear of Tom in court in effect trying make a diving shoestring catch on a mortgage he should have caught on one hop and just paid up.

[Pox]

Now just to highlight the lack of critical thinking that abounds over on GOODF, Society of the Spectacle has posted this:

I cant be sure, but I posted a video of Tom's case to the company Right Move, who had 3 Fearn Chase on their website.
It looks like they took it Down.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices ... Chase.html

Nothing listed for Sale.

Unfortunately for SoS (as he is sometimes called over there) he's incorrect, first and foremost he's linking to the wrong part of the site, an area which deals in house prices. I know he's incorrect because I just had a look myself and after a brief search, of the correct area, found the one time home of the Crawfords up for sale right here.

Toms house wasn't listed in the area SoS was looking at because it's not meant to be listed there. Either SoS knew this and chose to post misleading information, or he was easily confused and failed to double check by looking at the For Sale section, which is where you would expect to find properties that are currently for sale.

Yes, I noticed that earlier and I linked it to the agent being sick when others had a viewing booked last week.
In short, I smelt a rat and thought that an 'under the table' deal had been done.
Then I checked out the rightmove listing and realised that the poster on GOODF had got it wrong.
I am sure that he/she will correct the mistake.

[NYGman]

Not to continually flog a dead horse but if he wants to continue, and lose himself more money, he is free to exhaust any avenue still open to him, until those are shut down too. What he can never do, now, even if he is right (TO avoid doubt, He isn't) is get a court order to get that house back. The best he can do is get damages, a monetary amount equal to his loss. However, since he has no case, or chance of success this is all moot. Except he needs to give up claiming the house is his. That house is now long gone, and legally owned by someone else, who is not a party to any action Tom may have against B&B and its successors.

Correctly or incorrectly, legally or illegally, Tom and B&B no longer own the home, and can no longer give it back, ever!! The best he cold get is cash to cover the value of the house, which in theory he can use to buy the house at auction.

What Tom should do, if he really believes he has a case, is to buy the house at current market value (At auction) and sue B&B for the cost to repurchase. Baring that, he is never going to get that house back, even if he did triumph in the courts (Which, again, he will not).

So Tom needs to leave the current owner, anyone looking at the house, and any new buyer alone, as they are not a party to his dispute, and the house is no longer an available remedy to Tom.

So, unless Tom buys 3 Ferne Chase at auction, he will never have an ownership interest in it again (Assuming the house isn't bought by some idiot with more money than sense, who is buying the house to give to back Tom).

[Jeffrey]

Tom needs to leave the current owner, anyone looking at the house, and any new buyer alone, as they are not a party to his dispute, and the house is no longer an available remedy to Tom.

On the contrary, I fully encourage Tom to engage in criminal acts against the current owners of the house so that they may spend some well deserved time in jail.

[Hercule Parrot]

This latest video was back to the "poor us" bollocks of old, but with a call for boots on the ground at the auction.

If he carries on agitating against the peaceable use of this property by it's lawful owners, someone might pop down to the court and pick up a harassment injunction (s3 Protection from Harassment Act 1997). Breach of a s3 Order is a criminal offence eligible for imprisonment.

The Crawfraud tribe would no doubt defend his behaviour and claim that it was carried out for good reason (s1(3)), but that would be a matter for the judge to decide. The court might also decide to include other persons in the ambit of the Order, if it seemed that TC might continue his behaviour through them.

[Hercule Parrot]

I know I will be in a minority on here in still having a degree of sympathy for tom. Not for his actions (especially the recent ones with yiam) which are abhorrent. But because as a vulnerable person, at his hour of need, unfortunately he reached out to the wrong people and let their claws sink deep in to him.

You are right, of course. While we rightly criticise TC's deplorable behaviour, it must be remembered that he's a not very bright carpet-fitter, completely out of his depth in a sea of sharks. He is a stubborn, nasty old fool, but others have urged him into that for their own amusement and profit.

TC is merely a tiresome wasp, our concern should be to eradicate the nest.

[longdog]

Correctly or incorrectly, legally or illegally, Tom and B&B no longer own the home, and can no longer give it back, ever!! The best he cold get is cash to cover the value of the house, which in theory he can use to buy the house at auction.

Can I ask a hypothetical question?

As far as I know ordinary possessions if stolen always remain the legal property of the person from who they were stolen no matter how many times they are sold on even if all but the first sale by the thief were made in good faith. If somebody stole my somewhat distinctive Fender Jazz bass and I saw it in a CrackConverters one month, one year or ten years from now I would, as far as I know, be legally entitled to say "That's my property and I demand you return it to me" as nobody has ever had proper title to it. Obviously they wouldn't just say "Here you are then mate" and I would probably have to take legal action but essentially the bass would always have still been legally my property.

Now, that being the case lets just assume that pigs fly and the Bradford and Bingley suddenly say "Oh shit... You were right all along Mr Crawford and you really did pay back the mortgage in full". Would the fact that the court had made a judgement and granted possession to the B&B, even though that judgement turned out to be wrong, mean that the current owner of Crawford Cottage has full title which can never be reversed under any circumstances?

[Pox]

OK, TC posts another poor me video and we all start trying to analyse how or why he was led up the garden path by others. The sympathy card has worked again, at least over in quatloos land.

I really am in two minds here, is he the user or was he used?

On his PR videos, he does present well, I admit (the 'wronged', ''Hi my name is Tom' does garner some sympathy) but the non 'PR' videos have shown a different side - the one with Yiam shows his wife trying to reason with him 'Tom, let me speak to this man' whilst trying to grab his arm - perhaps to restrain him.

Going back to his first post on GOODF he really was trying to get out of his debt (free) via a so called promissory note.
Maybe he (or Sue) misunderstood the terms of his interest only mortgage at the start, not realising that they had to pay off the capital at the end of the term but they will of had plenty of warnings from their lender that they would be in a shortfall situation, so the penny should have dropped, so to speak.

TC is fixated on the fact that because he (mostly) paid his 'monthly mortgage payments' (plus one month) he has paid up without realising that he has made no payment to the capital sum.

He/they chose to ignore the warnings which they will have had from their lender until virtually the last minute (was it 3 months before an order for possession?)

On balance, and having given this much thought, my view is that TC is the user - he has used the crowd mob and most of them have turned their back having discovered that much of what was portrayed was not what it appeared to be.

Over of GOOFY, TC's latest video was posted earlier today. Interestingly there has been little reaction -

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 60&t=93124

Previously, there would have been a barrage of posts - TC, it is game over - take a long hard look and realise that you are on the road to nowhere and the 'poor me' act doesn't wash with me.

[Dr. Caligari]

As far as I know ordinary possessions if stolen always remain the legal property of the person from who they were stolen no matter how many times they are sold on even if all but the first sale by the thief were made in good faith.

For historical, but not logical, reasons, the laws relating to personal property and to real property are very different in the legal systems of the English-speaking countries. Rules that apply to one often do not apply to the other.

Secondly, under no set of conceivable circumstances would Tom's house be considered "stolen." Possession was taken from him by court order. If the same had happened to your Fender bass, and the court order were later reversed, you could not recover it from a remote good-faith purchaser for value.

[Joinder]

The one good thing to come out of this is that I think a few of his followers have realised there is no way to get out of debt by following Ceylon and others.
People have actually remarked on this on Colin Johnson's video asking for help for his mate, and I know at least one of them was a previous Tom supporter and was at one if the failed evictions.

[NG3]

Can I ask a hypothetical question?

Two flawed assumptions, 1) the judgement was wrong, 2) the house was stolen and therefore subject to be treated as a stolen item.

Based on all the evidence before the court the judgement was right. If one of the parties withheld evidence that's later produced to secure an alternative judgement then that's a separate matter and doesn't alter the fact that, at that time, based on available evidence, the judgement was right and therefore it was still a lawful repossession, and therefore is not stolen.

If, at a subsequent hearing, or trial some magical missing evidence were produced, that proved the mortgage had been paid, then UKAR (&/or the endowment company) would indeed owe Tom for the loss of his house (£55k - Tom can't argue, he drove the price down), but they can't return the house as it's not theirs to return.

[PeanutGallery]

As far as I know ordinary possessions if stolen always remain the legal property of the person from who they were stolen no matter how many times they are sold on even if all but the first sale by the thief were made in good faith.

For historical, but not logical, reasons, the laws relating to personal property and to real property are very different in the legal systems of the English-speaking countries. Rules that apply to one often do not apply to the other.

Secondly, under no set of conceivable circumstances would Tom's house be considered "stolen." Possession was taken from him by court order. If the same had happened to your Fender bass, and the court order were later reversed, you could not recover it from a remote good-faith purchaser for value.

Assuming that the courts made an error of law or fact. What you could expect however would be to be compensated for its value at the date that the error was noticed from the courts. Tom has lost the house and unless he recovers the funds to purchase it he will always have lost the house. It has been sold in good faith by persons actually possessing legal title to it.

As to your bass, in the example posted the legal ownership wouldn't have been transferred, it would remain yours even if it was bought in a pub by a drunkard out on a Burnaby of a night for hundreds of thousands, and as such you would expect to recover it - which depending on how well you actually play the instrument may not be such a good thing for the rest of us.

[mac]

As a matter of interest how much does Taylor & Co get paid for getting people into the mess that Tom is in
Or is it no win no fee