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

[wanglepin]

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

You can guarantee they - Ebert, Mark Haining Ceylon and Taylor all mooched of Crawford.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Or is it no win no fee

I doubt that. It would mean they could never collect a fee.

[PeterPan]

Posted on EFOTB...

Oh the irony!

[PeanutGallery]

Or is it no win no fee

I doubt that. It would mean they could never collect a fee.

I wouldn't be so sure, I mean Tom did 'win' according to his legal team. They even told the lady from the post that 15 times.

[NYGman]

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.

Except I read it first as bass, and while thinking it was perfectly acceptable thing for Burnaby to buy on a night out as a good ole' fryup sounds like it would be in order, with a side of chips. When my mind started to recall an odd image of a Muppet throwing and playing fish, I realized the error of my ways, and had me rereading the paragraph in its correct context with regard to a previous example. Oh how the mind wanders.

As to the answer, I think it was more than covered here, but also I believe the transcripts say more or less the same thing. Tom just didn't seem to register it. It must have been said in legalease, and was translated later by his experts to mean, there is only one possible outcome, you should have your home back, plus damages, plus an apology, some flowers, and a box of chockies...

[PeanutGallery]

And Onesies for Sue and Amanda...

[Skeleton]

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.

To be fair I am told their was a brief discussion recently on the possible new owner of Castle Crawford on FB, who was immediately labeled a "wrong un," and a visit was suggested to his business premises. Amanda stamped on that and then removed the post.

[Skeleton]

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.

SoS playing a usual GOODF slight of hand trick, knowing his "findings" will be believed. No surprise to learn then on checking the thread, he was indeed believed and even congratulated on his discovery.

[SteveUK]

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

If it's no win no fee, they must be millionaires by now in goodf land.

[longdog]

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.

Badly...

Actually I've not picked it up for years and should sell it really but I'm attached to it.

Thanks for the answers folks... That's pretty much what I assumed.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Do we know if rent-a-freetard have descended on the alleged owner's premises yet?

Nice to see they've already named the owner on EFOTB and branded him a 'perv'.
Mod - we don't need to help them on here thank you

[NG3]

Correcting Tom Crawford... Again....

Doazic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAU7fHMgdUs

[wanglepin]

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

Not even from Sycophant Sallie who is usually the first to tell and encourage a tard to stick to their chosen path.

[PeanutGallery]

Correcting Tom Crawford... Again....

Doazic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAU7fHMgdUs

I love Doazic's videos, they show a wonderful talent for highlighting everything wrong in the video. The last thing Tom says in Doazic's video is that we should look at the evidence and look it up on the internet. The problem with this statement is that Tom openly admits that he is withholding the evidence that would blow the proverbial horn off the unicorn because he doesn't want to show his hand to the dark forces (this may be true, although it seems more likely that the evidence he alludes to simply doesn't exist).

So Tom we can't look at the evidence you haven't shown us (or doesn't exist). Maybe you do have something that proves B&B and the courts were wrong, but if you don't present it in court all you are doing is making it very easy for Judges to say "Your case has no merit".

[IDIOT]

For sale by auction - Tuesday 3 November 2015
At Nottingham Racecourse, Colwick Park, Nottingham, NG2 4BE
Commencing at 11.30am

[noblepa]

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?

IANAL, but I had a couple of business law classes in college. In the US, at least, this is why, when one buys a house, the lender will insist on a title search, to determine if there is anyone in the past who might assert a superior claim to the property. They also may insist on title insurance, which would indemnify them in such an event.

OTOH, I was taught in my business law classes, that, while it is true that a thief may not pass clear title to stolen goods, if one buys something from a business that normally sells that item, and that you are a bona fide buyer, that you may actually get good title. To be a bona fide buyer, one must not know, or should not know, that the item is stolen and the buyer must pay fair market value. IOW, if I buy a used car from a car dealer and pay a realistic price, I might be able to claim clear title. If, on the other hand, a guy in a back alley offers to sell me a one-year old Corvette for $10,000, cash only, I'm probably not a bona fide buyer. In that case, I should know, or at least suspect, that the car is stolen, as that is way under market value for such a car.

The law may well be different in the UK.

Again, IANAL, but I believe that courts can, and sometimes do, reverse a completed sale, if they find that one or more of the parties acted in bad faith. However, even if the courts determined bad faith on the part of B & B, I doubt that they would reverse the subsequent sale by a bona fide buyer in this case. I think they would be more likely to award Tom monetary damages. But, that ain't gonna happen. Tom is the one who has acted in bad faith, not B & B.

[hucknallred]

For sale by auction - Tuesday 3 November 2015
At Nottingham Racecourse, Colwick Park, Nottingham, NG2 4BE
Commencing at 11.30am

Tom has already put out a call to his troops, but the usual suspects will struggle to meet the entrance criteria, so will have to protest from wherever security halt their progress.

Prospective purchasers will need to register within the auction room before the sale commences. Two items of identity will be required together with an indication of how a contractual deposit will be paid. We do not take cash deposits.

Shall we start a sweep of who we think will turn up? There will no doubt be videos posted of "The Storming of Nottingham Racecourse".

My 2 picks - Ceylon (cameraman) & Leigh "Where's my boat" Ravenscroft.

[NG3]

Tom is the one who has acted in bad faith, not B & B.

It's certainly worth pointing out that Tom (& Amanda & others) have repeatedly claimed they have this magic evidence.

If that were true then it would be Tom's fault for not presenting it, and no one else's, thus making himself liable if an incorrect judgement were reached.

Basically, even if this magic evidence really existed, Tom would still be in the hole.

Legally even a "win" for Tom now would be a defeat.

He's effectively in the same place now as a gambleholic, trying to gamble his way out of trouble with gambits that if successful don't even touch the sides, but when, as usual they go wrong, further increases the debt.

He can rehash the same failed arguments again and again (CRO's permitting), much as he's done to date (eg. warrants, unpaid fees he's repeatedly been told have been paid etc.) but he'll just get the same answers again and again (eg. he's wrong, or it's irrelevant etc.).

There's nothing Tom can do, he's lost (hence the CRO, because there's nothing left of merit for him to say), and even with any magic evidence (that we all know doesn't exist) he'd still come out losing now.

[PeanutGallery]

I noticed today that SoS over on GOODF has admitted he was mistaken, albeit unintentionally that Tom's house was up for sale, he's also made an allegation that I am also known as "Angolvagyok" which is frankly new to me, I'm not even sure how to spell that, much less pronounce it and frankly it makes no sense to me. What is an Angolvagyk? What does it mean? Is it an anagram of something else?

[IDIOT]

For sale by auction - Tuesday 3 November 2015
At Nottingham Racecourse, Colwick Park, Nottingham, NG2 4BE
Commencing at 11.30am

Tom has already put out a call to his troops, but the usual suspects will struggle to meet the entrance criteria, so will have to protest from wherever security halt their progress.

Prospective purchasers will need to register within the auction room before the sale commences. Two items of identity will be required together with an indication of how a contractual deposit will be paid. We do not take cash deposits.

Just like to mention that's a standard comment on their website listings and not something they have set up for this particular sale. Two forms of ID is easy enough to provide but the question begs what does 'an indication of how to pay a contractual deposit...' mean?

I'll call them again tomorrow to clarify this and report back here.Someone needs to be there to report the truth before Colon et al get the opportunity to twist the proceedings to their own advantage and claim yet another win!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!.