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

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:31 am

AndyPandy wrote:
fat frank wrote:
Jeffrey wrote:Making money flipping houses is "whacko".

Amanda, you idiots artificially reduced the price of the house below market value. You created the circumstances that allowed for the buyer to make an easy chunk of money simply reselling the house or refurbishing and selling.

What's whacko is your family turning the ~£50,000 in equity you had in the house into £98,000 in debt plus criminal charges.
But you forget Tom won, every one except the police, bailiffs and the public know tom won and they stole the house, Tom even claimed he had a direct line to the judge who was working on a way to get him back in to the house, after the police and bailiffs didn't understand his judgement and went and stole the house
No, no, no the Judgment was correct, it's the possession order that was wrong, it's all a dreadful mistake based upon a tying error. Instead of reading Possession is Granted they missed out the word NOT

I was reading a thread on a site the other day and someone was claiming that EP paid out but it was £1100 short, so BB just took the house,

Normal Wisdom · Post by **Normal Wisdom** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:37 am

fat frank wrote: I was reading a thread on a site the other day and someone was claiming that EP paid out but it was £1100 short, so BB just took the house,

That will be the EP that was surrendered in 1992. I wish I'd had one of those.

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:41 am

Normal Wisdom wrote:
fat frank wrote: I was reading a thread on a site the other day and someone was claiming that EP paid out but it was £1100 short, so BB just took the house,
That will be the EP that was surrendered in 1992. I wish I'd had one of those.

think this was the one they paid up to 99 or 06, theres been that many, tom must be the only bloke to pay off 3 EP his mortgage in full and still get it repod

Normal Wisdom · Post by **Normal Wisdom** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:46 am

fat frank wrote:
Normal Wisdom wrote:
fat frank wrote: I was reading a thread on a site the other day and someone was claiming that EP paid out but it was £1100 short, so BB just took the house,
That will be the EP that was surrendered in 1992. I wish I'd had one of those.
think this was the one they paid up to 99 or 06, theres been that many, tom must be the only bloke to pay off 3 EP his mortgage in full and still get it repod

But Tom said that B&B had converted his mortgage to "interest only" long before '99 so there couldn't have been an EP could there? Of course there would have been one if B&B had done what they were supposed to and paid it for him.

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:54 am

that bloke has no luck,

he paid a EP that the bank lost, the bank was meant to pay one as well but they didn't, the bank changed his mortgage from a interest only EP to a interest only mortgage, they took his house when the judge said not to, they didn't even offer any evidence to prove he owed the money, there was no fee paid, and the worse thing, BB (bloody bastards) claim they told Sue in 99 there was no EP and she cant remember, they faked letters over the 25 years never posting them, faking signatures to make it look like they was trying to help sue and tom, but in truth, this was set up 25 years to steal toms bungy

wanglepin · Post by **wanglepin** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:59 am

will Crawford be going into one of those freeman common law grand juries. I am surprised not to hear that he is seeing Taylor had put himself forward and didn't get the result he believed he would get. Perhaps Crawford can't afford the fees now anyway.

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:02 am

wanglepin wrote:will Crawford be going into one of those freeman common law grand juries. I am surprised not to hear that he is seeing Taylor had put himself forward and didn't get the result he believed he would get. Perhaps Crawford can't afford the fees now anyway.

the last one turned his win in to a loss, then in to a win,

why when did Guy fail?

hucknallred · Post by **hucknallred** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:32 am

fat frank wrote: I was reading a thread on a site the other day and someone was claiming that EP paid out but it was £1100 short, so BB just took the house,

You weren't watching "GoPro on a stick" man were you? I don't think I've heard anyone sum up the situation so inaccurately as he does here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkgmiNE ... e&t=22m25s

He mentions £11k.

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:34 am

hucknallred wrote:
fat frank wrote: I was reading a thread on a site the other day and someone was claiming that EP paid out but it was £1100 short, so BB just took the house,
You weren't watching "GoPro on a stick" man were you? I don't think I've heard anyone sum up the situation so inaccurately as he does here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkgmiNE ... e&t=22m25s

He mentions £11k.

no, it was a thread, will try and find it

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:36 am

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2072196

3rd one down, its 1,1000, not 1,100 sorry

https://www.change.org/p/support-tom-cr ... eated=true

wanglepin · Post by **wanglepin** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:38 am

fat frank wrote:
the last one turned his win in to a loss, then in to a win,

why when did Guy fail?

Slightly confused me there Frank. Has Crawford had one of these freeman grand juries?
In the case of Taylor, his freeman grand jury couldn't make their minds up, so they brought in a verdict of "ignoramus" which, according to them means "we do not know".

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:40 am

wanglepin wrote:
fat frank wrote:
the last one turned his win in to a loss, then in to a win,

why when did Guy fail?
Slightly confused me there Frank. Has Crawford had one of these freeman grand juries?
In the case of Taylor, his freeman grand jury couldn't make their minds up, so they brought in a verdict of "ignoramus" which, according to them means "we do not know".

Yes Crawford went to them, and they said he must be given his house back, will find a link

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:45 am

hucknallred wrote:
fat frank wrote: I was reading a thread on a site the other day and someone was claiming that EP paid out but it was £1100 short, so BB just took the house,
You weren't watching "GoPro on a stick" man were you? I don't think I've heard anyone sum up the situation so inaccurately as he does here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkgmiNE ... e&t=22m25s

He mentions £11k.

Tom really doesn't have a clue about anything,

FatGambit · Post by **FatGambit** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:50 am

wanglepin wrote:
fat frank wrote:
the last one turned his win in to a loss, then in to a win,

why when did Guy fail?
Slightly confused me there Frank. Has Crawford had one of these freeman grand juries?
In the case of Taylor, his freeman grand jury couldn't make their minds up, so they brought in a verdict of "ignoramus" which, according to them means "we do not know".

Straight from the slightly crazy horses mouth...
http://universalcommunitytrust.net/peop ... -crawford/

Joinder · Post by **Joinder** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:24 am

Haven't followed this thread for a while, but the "Tom Crawford stalkers found" video is disturbing.
Anyone know the story behind it ?

FatGambit · Post by **FatGambit** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:46 am

Our very own Yiam went to view a property, then went to the local for lunch, whilst leaving, Tom found him and confronted him, the rest is in the video. How Tom found him has not been established, although Tom claims two stories, firstly his daughter went into the pub to pick up a Christmas menu and felt uncomfortable being photographed by someone in there (yet nobody inthe pub saw her), and then as mentioned in the video, Tom accused Yiam of following him from reading (I think).

I guess Tom's car is either extremely underpowered, or Yiam owns a Transformer cos even to the untrained eye, there's no way that truck would keep up with a Ford Mondeo under normal circumstances.

Think that's about covered it.

Oh and the dog's a wimp (but cute) lol.

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:00 pm

what you also got to remember is the crawfords claim that the neightbours all want them back in the street, even the police are giving them info as they believe the house was stolen, the estate agents who took the house down did so as they believe it was stolen as well, all these people are backing the crawfords

Joinder · Post by **Joinder** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:01 pm

FatGambit wrote:Our very own Yiam went to view a property, then went to the local for lunch, whilst leaving, Tom found him and confronted him, the rest is in the video. How Tom found him has not been established, although Tom claims two stories, firstly his daughter went into the pub to pick up a Christmas menu and felt uncomfortable being photographed by someone in there (yet nobody inthe pub saw her), and then as mentioned in the video, Tom accused Yiam of following him from reading (I think).

I guess Tom's car is either extremely underpowered, or Yiam owns a Transformer cos even to the untrained eye, there's no way that truck would keep up with a Ford Mondeo under normal circumstances.

Think that's about covered it.

Oh and the dog's a wimp (but cute) lol.

Something not being explained. I can't believe they accidentally bumped into each other, and how would Tom know that Yiam was someone from Quatloos or that he had been commenting on his affairs ?
I do hope that Tom was being followed, as that would be very odd and obsessive.

fat frank · Post by **fat frank** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:08 pm

the crawfords watch all the facebook pages, and Yiam put he was having something to eat at the pub, so someone told tom and tom went mental, but he couldn't say he seen it on facebook, so made up BS to try and look like the victim, tom is a professional victim in life, they are now claiming Yiam has bought the house, (who knows)

the crawfords are nothing but bullies who use people and vile, all there supporters, tom wouldn't even talk to them unless he needed them

Joinder · Post by **Joinder** » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:29 pm

No, something is off here.
Does Yiam normally post on Facebook every time he has something to eat ? I'm not on FB so maybe people do post stuff like that, but I find that odd.
Then how does Tom recognise Yiam from others in the pub?

Quatloos!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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