Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[longdog]

One of the basic problems all along is that Tom et al have no understanding of the purpose of a Warrant of Possession. They (choose to?) equate it with an arrest warrant "sworn out" by a judge when in fact a Warrant of Possession it is simply an instruction from the court for a bailiff to execute the Order of Possession.

The Order is the record of the judge's decision that possession of the property must be given to the claimant. The Warrant simply an instruction to execute that decision.

Their focus on the validity of the warrant has always missed the point. Godsmark ordered that possession be given to the claimant and the Crawfrauds failed to successfully challenge that decision.

This is the bit I don't get not just with TC & Co but with so many of their fellow woo-pedlars... They were there in court and they heard the judge's decision with their own shell like ear'oles. They KNOW what the decision of the court was so why is it even important to them to have a wet-ink, wet-seal, signed over a thruppenny stamp copy of the order? (<--- Rhetorical question)

[PeanutGallery]

Because in their mind he wasn't a Judge, in spite of having been appointed to the role of Judge by a court and in spite of having been in a courtroom within a court building and in spite of their having been a claim issued which brought both the parties to the court, he wasn't a Judge.

He was a man in a robe, only he wasn't wearing the robe, so he was a man in a suit. Plus while it was a courtroom in a court, it wasn't the 'right' courtroom. It was a different one. Therefore it wasn't legit, because the Judge wasn't in fancy dress and they weren't in the right room in the building.

Of course in the real world none of this matters, we know the Judge was a Judge and that he Judged the case. We know that because the verdict was announced and published. We know that the courtroom was an appropriate choice and that changing the room didn't have any impact on the actual arguments made or on the facts relevant to the case or on the law. If the court that had been scheduled to hear the case was unusable due to say flooding, would it not be appropriate to move the proceedings to an adjacent room?

But Tom and his supporters are looking at things through the perverse beer goggles of the policemans hat fallacy. They are looking for something that would fundamentally have no bearing on the case. This, in my opinion, is because they are unable to articulate a sound reason that would be valid in law that would result in Tom getting his cabin back and so instead attack things that do not actually matter or impact on the decision in order to further their conspiracy theory and to allow them to keep playing the narcissistic victim card.

[NYGman]

They believe form over substance. The Judgement is of no relevance unless it is documented correctly. If there are any defects in paperwork, then the any action under the defective document is illegal, and illegitimate. Hypothetically, If they were to receive a warrant that conformed to their warped view of a warrant they would be happy to comply. However the fact that they are adding requirements for a Criminal warrant to the possession order, means that they will never get the warrant they seek, as like the much talked about Unicorn, it just doesn't exist and never will. We have seen the actual Warrant, and it is valid, despite what TC's legal expert, Mr. Ebert, believes.

[AndyPandy]

They believe form over substance. The Judgement is of no relevance unless it is documented correctly. If there are any defects in paperwork, then the any action under the defective document is illegal, and illegitimate. Hypothetically, If they were to receive a warrant that conformed to their warped view of a warrant they would be happy to comply. However the fact that they are adding requirements for a Criminal warrant to the possession order, means that they will never get the warrant they seek, as like the much talked about Unicorn, it just doesn't exist and never will. We have seen the actual Warrant, and it is valid, despite what TC's legal expert, Mr. Ebert, believes.

But remember, it wasn't the warrant that was the problem, it was the Order that the Warrant was taken from that was incorrect.

According to Ebert, the wrong order was issued following his forensic examination of the Judgement, so naturally the possession warrant that came from that incorrect order was (naturally!) flawed.

[aesmith]

According to Ebert, the wrong order was issued following his forensic examination of the Judgement, so naturally the possession warrant that came from that incorrect order was (naturally!) flawed.

Was that forensic examination, by the famously successful Mr Ebert, published as text or only on Youtube?

[letissier14]

According to Ebert, the wrong order was issued following his forensic examination of the Judgement, so naturally the possession warrant that came from that incorrect order was (naturally!) flawed.

Was that forensic examination, by the famously successful Mr Ebert, published as text or only on Youtube?

Page 80 on this thread, half way down

[noblepa]

I assume that, in the UK, as in the US, there are occasionally criminal defendants who are acquitted due to "a technicality", or a civil case, in which the case is decided on "a technicality". In these cases, many people believe that justice has been perverted.

I think that, in the minds of many who do not understand the law, there is a belief that this is a common occurence. Tom and others think that they have found the "technicality" that will void the judgement against them and restore to them that which was taken from them.

[getoutofdebtfools]

I assume that, in the UK, as in the US, there are occasionally criminal defendants who are acquitted due to "a technicality", or a civil case, in which the case is decided on "a technicality". In these cases, many people believe that justice has been perverted.

I think that, in the minds of many who do not understand the law, there is a belief that this is a common occurence. Tom and others think that they have found the "technicality" that will void the judgement against them and restore to them that which was taken from them.

I think you're spot on. Despite Tom's claims of paying for his house in full I think he now knows that he didn't (as Sweaty Sue stopped the endowment etc.) and is hoping any number of perceived technicalities might get him his house back.

We all know it won't but it's fun watching each ridiculous turn of events.

[rumpelstilzchen]

This is the bit I don't get not just with TC & Co but with so many of their fellow woo-pedlars... They were there in court and they heard the judge's decision with their own shell like ear'oles. They KNOW what the decision of the court was so why is it even important to them to have a wet-ink, wet-seal, signed over a thruppenny stamp copy of the order? (<--- Rhetorical question)

From what I have read elsewhere I think the freetards believe that although the judge makes the order he dare not actually sign it. Their belief is the judge knows he is committing fraud when he issues the warrant so if he signs it he knows is putting his name to the fraud and becomes personally liable. Signing it would mean he is putting himself in danger of being prosecuted for fraud, treason, terrorism etc. etc. IIRC we saw this with Tom when he was in court and he asked if any judge would be willing to put their name to the warrant.

[littleFred]

Yeah, but it's just a post hoc argument: There must be something that makes warrants invalid. Ah, I know, they are not signed. Given that judges are corrupt criminals, why don't they sign warrants? We need to invent a reason that demonstrates how corrupt they are. Here's a reason: Because they know the warrants are bogus, and signing them would make them parties to the crime, etc.

These idiots ignore the simple explanation: the rules say that most warrants don't need signing. And the reason for that rule is that the warrant doesn't grant extra authority over an order. As others here have said, the order gives the authority, not the actual warrant.

Tom already knew he had been ordered to move out. The warrant didn't tell him to do anything more.

[Bones]

Weren't we all supposed to have been arrested for being trolls and/or subject to a private prosecution by now ?

The reason I ask is because instead of anyone of us being arrested, the Police have told Tom to move on (no jokes about losing his house) with his life

Tom Crawford shared Andrew Peppin's post.
14 hrs

Hi all,

I was speaking to a Detective Inspector yesterday and he said that I should now move on? I explained why we battle so hard for my family and others!

So when you see what happens to people like this old couple you then understand why.

[letissier14]

Yep , he said that the police were fully aware of the trolling of his family and that we would all be receiving a knock on the door very soon!

[TheNewSaint]

"Move on" is exactly right, and exactly what Tom Crawford needs to be told. He has no more avenues to continue this stupid quest, and the justice system should not have to waste any more time listening to him. He had plenty of opportunities to keep his home, or at least save some equity, but he chose to take advice from GetOutOfDebtFree.com instead. Now he has nothing. If he hears "move on" enough times, maybe it'll dawn on him someday.

[notorial dissent]

I think what Tom is seeing there and not recognizing is the standard police, and organization, policy of humor the senile old duffer and get him to move on QUIETLY, rather than telling him the flat out truth that they are tired of listening to his broken record, that he lost his house fair and square, got evicted legally and properly, and lost ALL his court cases, and there is NOTHING further that can be done and they are tired of listening to him rattle on. Not that it would matter, since he would take what ever they actually said and twist it to his world fantasy.

[AiusLocutius]

since he would take what ever they actually said and twist it to his world fantasy.

You are correct. This is now outside the legal realm. It's a psychological matter. Tom has spend many years digesting and believing the the crap posted on goofy land and has lost his home because of it. In his mind he cannot let the cold truth in. He is unable to admit to himself that he got himself caught up in a load of nonsense. So of course he has to believe there is a corrupt system in place. This is the only way he can continue to function.
This is a very sad story that has been played out in public.

[getoutofdebtfools]

I trust you've all got your tickets for one of the 24 cinemas on 18th February 2017...

http://roguemale.org/2017/01/16/a-mortg ... 600-words/


TGBMS Day – Saturday, 18 February, 2017

TheGreatBritishMortgageSwindle to be screened Nationwide at 24 Cinemas via Cinema-on-demand

https://www.a-fp.net/introducing-cinema-on-demand/

There are some 11.2 million mortgages in Britain but how many people actually understand what one is?

A mortgage literally means, ‘Dead Pledge’: late Middle English: from Old French, literally ‘dead pledge,’ from mort (from Latin mortuus ‘dead’) + gage ‘pledge.’

A pledge is a promise. A mortgage is a dead promise.

On its face, it seems very straightforward – a man receives a loan, called a mortgage, for a property and, in so doing, agrees to pay it back within a set period, usually 25 years. Should he fail to do so, the creditor (the lender) claims the right to take his property by way of the registered charge created by his signature on the Mortgage Deed, which forms his sincere promise to pay.

However, it is more complex than many of us would imagine.

What if you were told that, as a matter of fact, no loan had taken place?

You might ask,

’How could that be? The bank loaned me the money and I used it to buy the house and the land. I borrowed their money, therefore, I have to pay it back.’

However, this is an illusion. How?

The bank (the mortgagee) did not actually loan you any of its own money. Most money is created as debt in the form of ‘loans’ and every ‘loan’ is created as a ‘promise to pay’ – just like the Bank of England notes in your wallet......

[longdog]

"every ‘loan’ is created as a ‘promise to pay’"

Leaving aside the questionable nature of that statement it sums up in nine simple words why their theories are bullshit.

When you take out a loan you 'promise to pay' it back. No more needs to be said.

[TheNewSaint]

I note also the 'currency is a promise to pay' argument, a la Peter of England.

[longdog]

I note also the 'currency is a promise to pay' argument, a la Peter of England.

Which presumably means the people they bought the house from are still waiting for the promise to pay to pay out or would they pay the promise to pay with a promise to pay?

[TheNewSaint]

Which presumably means the people they bought the house from are still waiting for the promise to pay to pay out or would they pay the promise to pay with a promise to pay?

It's turtles all the way down.