Tom Crawford is on the roof of Fearn Close !!!

[letissier14]

Over at EFOTB

Silly Liz Watson is telling Tom how strong his case is

Elizabeth Watson
18 mins

Hi Tom,

have you already served a DSAR Notice on UKAR & Walker Morris & the court, for disclosure of all data they hold on you??
If not, you can get the ICO to issue a letter under sections 13 & 55 to produce to the court, to have full restitution & YR position restored

Have you also considered setting the CPS & UKAR a 14 day challenge :
*to produce an original valid warrant,
* to produce accounts of all interest charged on yr house and all money's you've paid for it, *inspection of the original Contract and Note
* forensic proof of the physical advance
* forensic audited proof that a debt exists or has ever existed against yr property
* full disclosure of who commanded & instigated the terrorist attack against you on 2nd July 2015, and on what lawful basis?

Challenge them to submit the results to the High Court Chancery Division, within 14 days, and simultaneously renew yr SARN requests not yet complied with & apply under Disclosure Rules for a High Court Order of Part 31 disclosure of "giving of the account and contract, showing what repayment vehicle was put in place"...

Also send the same request to Walker Morris & judge Godsmark, providing proof that you've paid for the property 3 times over & so put them all on Notice.

Serve a sworn Affidavit why the judgment is void in law, absent there being any actual order to evict you, citing the above grounds, that you are the lawful and rightful occupier with full rights and equity ownership of the said property.
Then you'll have them cornered and any non response entitles you to seize back your home in full Public view and to settle the argument & take up occupancy. You then have rights of damages to reinstate making the house habitable
Hope this helps?

You're in a strong position. Go for it, Tom, we're all behind you!

You're a great teacher & this will help millions of people who dont understand their rights nor how these criminal gangs infiltrate our lives, uninvited.

Kind regards, liz

[guilty]

*to produce an original valid warrant,
already produced, several times, Tom has copies, we've all seen them, the Court has seen them.

* to produce accounts of all interest charged on yr house and all money's you've paid for it,
Tom has them, delivered every month by B&B, though he may have thrown some of them away. We've all seen them on video

* inspection of the original Contract and Note
Tom has this. We've all seen it on video, complete with Tom and Sue's signatures

* forensic proof of the physical advance
That'll be Tom buying the house and living in it for 25 years

* forensic audited proof that a debt exists or has ever existed against yr property
That'll be the original contract (see above) and Tom accepting the debt for 25 years

* full disclosure of who commanded & instigated the terrorist attack against you on 2nd July 2015, and on what lawful basis?
"terrorist"? Lawful because Tom didn't pay back the capital loan

[rumpelstilzchen]

Elizabeth Watson wrote:

Have you also considered setting the CPS & UKAR a 14 day challenge

I find it hilarious that these fuckwits believe they can set a time limit and if the company they are challenging do not perform in the time the fuckwit has set it means the company loses.

[PeanutGallery]

I would think that Tom and his guru's will never see a warrant that meets their requirements, mostly because they reinvent them whenever they are presented with reality. Tom didn't see a real warrant, he only saw a 'faked' warrant. How did he know it was faked? Because he was told by someone who's also never seen a real warrant, but this warrant looked a lot like the 'fake' warrant that Ebert and Taylor had both seen when they were evicted from their properties.

Tom can't allow himself to see a real warrant, for the same reason that he can't allow himself to admit to not paying the endowment. This is why he claims the bank lost it, they didn't. The bank did what banks tend to do where their money is concerned, which is to keep records. The Crawfords lost it, when they cancelled the endowment policy.

Tom admitted this in court. It's why people stumped up the money for a transcript, because of an interest in finding out what was actually going on. In court, where Tom was being told what to do by one of his dear advisers Mr O'Bernicia, he admitted that the mortgage hadn't been changed from an interest only endowment policy. It hadn't changed from a repayment mortgage, because it was never a repayment mortgage.

Some have commented on a perceived injustice that Tom paid back three times in interest the amount he had borrowed saying that it seems an excessive amount. The problem with this is that it misunderstands what Tom was paying interest on and what that interest was for. Tom was paying for the utility that having the money gave him over the period he had arranged to have it, a bank is under no obligation to let someone have money, nobody has an inherent right to a line of credit. If Tom wasn't allowed to have an advance from the bank for a great number of years he would never have been able to afford to buy the house from whoever owned it before he did. That is what Tom was paying for.

Tom doesn't accept that the amount he paid wasn't enough to buy the property but the truth is, it wasn't. Tom and Sue may have been confused about mortgages, or may have either overestimated their income (or suffered an unforeseen drop in available income after taking out the loan) but either way it seems that they got into a little more debt than they could afford.

They didn't repay the capital and then advanced a number of arguments and took a number of steps to try and make the repossession of their home cost more than it would be worth the bank to take. Their tactics adopted were based on getting a notice of eviction and getting their internet mates round. Tom wanted to win by rule of mob and not by rule of law. This led to the court action and protests, including the demonstration outside Nottingham court where Godsmark reserved judgement (so that the bad news could be delivered without the demonstration descending into disruption).

At no point has Tom actually talked about the endowment policy. Mark Haining has talked about it, in a video where he attacks a poor journalist from the post. But I cannot recall Tom ever offering an explanation on the endowment. Neither has Amanda Pike or Craig or Sue. Mark Haining has claimed that the endowment was lost by the bank. But here's the rub of that argument, if the endowment was lost by the bank, then it suggests that the Crawfords didn't lose it or surrender it. In which case, they should have kept paying it, and should have bank records to show that they made these payments.

They don't. The Crawfords haven't shown a single statement from after the date the bank claim the policy was surrendered showing that they kept paying it. I submit that they don't have one because they stopped paying.

[PeanutGallery]

Elizabeth Watson wrote:

Have you also considered setting the CPS & UKAR a 14 day challenge

I find it hilarious that these fuckwits believe they can set a time limit and if the company they are challenging do not perform in the time the fuckwit has set it means the company loses.

Not only that but the time limit is usually on the short side. It would be like me calling Burnaby a Molsen's swilling hockey pucker and saying if he doesn't rebut the claim in five minutes it has to stand.

[Bones]

Apologies if they have already been posted and I have missed it.

I was intending to post the warrant, the application for the warrant to be reissued and the notice of the baliffs appointment when I get home from work tonight.

Would that be ok with the powers that be (burnaby & co). Given what they are I would prefer confirmation before posting them

[guilty]

Not only that but the time limit is usually on the short side. It would be like me calling Burnaby a Molsen's swilling hockey pucker and saying if he doesn't rebut the claim in five minutes it has to stand.

You're a twit, and no backsies!

[getoutofdebtfools]

I spoke to a bailiff last year who was enforcing a parking fine against me (all my fault, should have appealed it but didn't) and he said that they only carry copies and the original remains in the head office. Apparently this was to ensure the safety of the original because some Oiks like to rip them out of his hands and tear them up.

Given the ineptitude of the civil courts in general, I wonder if there's a possibility they have lost the original sealed warrant

I presume the bailiff I spoke too is right and that copies are admissible and usable in enforcement of a court order?

Not sure it matters though as Tom and forensic legal experts, ahem, wouldn't accept any warrant they'd be resented with.

[exiledscouser]

Liz Watson, founder member of the big failure club must be ignorant of Toms status of Vexatious Litigant.

[longdog]

Liz Watson, founder member of the big failure club must be ignorant of Toms status of Vexatious Litigant.

In the parallel universe inhabited by Liz, Colon, Inky T, Hayes and their ilk I get paid a fortune advising people on chatting up the opposite / same sex, interior decorating and carpentry... Three things I'm absolutely hopeless at

[guilty]

Given the ineptitude of the civil courts in general, I wonder if there's a possibility they have lost the original sealed warrant

I'm not sure that an "original sealed warrant" even exists (or needs to exist) in these digital days. As long as the information is held by the court they can print them off (or show them on screen) whenever they are requested. The need for wax seals, ink stamps and 'wet signatures' is long gone.

[longdog]

I think somebody posted a link some time ago which proved that a computer generated 'seal', which is in reality just a circle with a bit of text in it, was legally exactly the same as a 'wet-ink' seal or a fancy-schmancy wax seal.

[Bones]

Court documents to be sealed

2.6

(1) The court must seal(GL) the following documents on issue –

(a) the claim form; and

(b) any other document which a rule or practice direction requires it to seal.

(2) The court may place the seal(GL) on the document –

(a) by hand; or

(b) by printing a facsimile of the seal on the document whether electronically or otherwise.

(3) A document purporting to bear the court’s seal(GL) shall be admissible in evidence without further proof.



https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... part02#2.6

[rumpelstilzchen]

Yes, that is all very well and good, Bones but you are forgetting that Colon and his GOOFy crew have invented their own set of rules which means they can reject any legitimate court document and call "FRAUD!!!!1!!!!"
GOOFs love the term "wet ink". They have wet dreams involving wet ink.

[midjit-gems]

They don't accept it's a warrant for simple reason they genuinely believe a ware ant has to have wet ink andperforming seal. Yes we all know that nowhere in any cpr acts or legislations of any kind does it specify this has to be the case, in fact to the contrary, it's clearly written that all court documents can be digital, facsimile or otherwise. We are now in the digital age it's time they came out of the dark and realised times change.

I've spoken to Craig in the past when he pm'd me on Facebook. He genuinely listens to and believes everyrhing daddy and Co tell him to. He does no research himself, doesn't understand law or anything to do with mortgages yet expects us to believe he writes all his own software. Yea ok.

[rumpelstilzchen]

They don't accept it's a warrant for simple reason they genuinely believe a ware ant has to have wet ink

And obviously it must be written by using a quill that has been fashioned from a feather plucked from a Norwegian Blue and delicately honed by a virgin at midnight. Anything less than that means it isn't legitimate. It's all in the magna carta.

[guilty]

Large men with "possession warrants" don't just turn up on your doorstep out of the blue. There will have been communications from your mortgage lender and the courts and, unless you are hiding under a rock with your fingers in your ears, there will have been a court hearing where you can argue your case. Tom had all of these - several times.
In Tom's case B&B were given the courts permission to implement the outstanding possession order(though Guy Taylor convinced Tom it hadn't).

It is the height of lunacy to then suggest that a subsequent "warrant" is invalid or somehow "missing". Tom seems to be fixated about the intricate design of a form that only exists in his own mind. If the information held by the court had been written down on the back of a fag packet it wouldn't change things. If Tom was confused and felt that the paper "warrant" was insufficient he could have gone to the court and asked to see the order (which eventually he did).

A facsimile from the hands of the court clerk is slam-dunk proof that unicorns exist.

[midjit-gems]

They don't accept it's a warrant for simple reason they genuinely believe a ware ant has to have wet ink

And obviously it must be written by using a quill that has been fashioned from a feather plucked from a Norwegian Blue and delicately honed by a virgin at midnight. Anything less than that means it isn't legitimate. It's all in the magna carta.

The ink must be pure virgin unicorn blood too. Which only a forensic expert can detect w

[noblepa]

So all this nonsense about sending people out to get it hmmmm yea ok at what point will they stop lying about events that can be proven?

Never.

As one of the hosts of the American show, Mythbusters (do you get it in the UK?) says in the opening sequence, "I reject your reality and substitute my own". He is being a little facetious. Amanda and the others not.

[Bungle]

They don't accept it's a warrant for simple reason they genuinely believe a ware ant has to have wet ink

And obviously it must be written by using a quill that has been fashioned from a feather plucked from a Norwegian Blue and delicately honed by a virgin at midnight. Anything less than that means it isn't legitimate. It's all in the magna carta.

The ink must be pure virgin unicorn blood too. Which only a forensic expert can detect w

The name Ebert springs to mind.