The Crawfords Keep Looking For A Unicorn

[Arthur Rubin]

A unicorn with a prostate condition?

[SteveUK]

Crawfraud is back from his 'self imposed sabbatical' and ready to take on TPTB. What doomed remedy could be at the root of this legal giant rising like the phoenix?

[Gregg]

A unicorn with a prostate condition?

The part that says "injury to nearby tissue, including the bowel, blood vessels, nerves and pelvic floor muscles" doesn't go on to explain that the downstream effect of these usually includes incontinence and impotence, which go a long way towards explaining his general asshole-ness.

And is this common in the UK? Here, actually doing the surgical prostate removal is just a little better than bleeding the patient. I had a course of directed beam radiation therapy which really sucked, and didn't work. After waiting 6 months to recover from that, they did some kind of cobalt pellet injection (as fun as it sounds) and re did the radiation, and I've been cancer free for 12 years. Mine was caught very early, and at almost the exact same time my brother was diagnosed with a later stage prostate cancer that killed him at 47, about the same time I was finally recovering.

Go get checked every year after 40, its very rare to have detectable prostate cancer that early, but if you have it that young, its likely going to kill you way too young.

[ArthurWankspittle]

And is this common in the UK?

Choice is between surgery and radiotherapy at your, mine and Tom's ages. Surgery done with the use of a DaVinci robot if available. Tom's probably wasn't as is was a few years back. Why, as is implied, he needed a second surgery is complete speculation. EDIT: Just put up with his droning bs for a few minutes to check. He actually says "numerous" surgeries so goodness knows what was going on.

Go get checked every year after 40, its very rare to have detectable prostate cancer that early, but if you have it that young, its likely going to kill you way too young.

e.g. Frank Zappa

[doublelong]

And is this common in the UK?

Choice is between surgery and radiotherapy at your, mine and Tom's ages. Surgery done with the use of a DaVinci robot if available. Tom's probably wasn't as is was a few years back. Why, as is implied, he needed a second surgery is complete speculation. EDIT: Just put up with his droning bs for a few minutes to check. He actually says "numerous" surgeries so goodness knows what was going on.

Go get checked every year after 40, its very rare to have detectable prostate cancer that early, but if you have it that young, its likely going to kill you way too young.

e.g. Frank Zappa

I commented on this a year ago. He was doing the no win no fee medical negligence rounds in notts and nobody would take him on.

[longdog]

Trying to shake down the NHS because he had to have a follow up operation or had side-effects... Both of which he was almost certainly warned about?

[SteveUK]

Fail

[AndyPandy]

I wonder if they’ll warn anyone that they’ll be all liable for the other sides costs when they get any court action they’ve managed to start thrown out as being ‘without merit’.

[SteveUK]

Nothing a WeRe cheque can't sort!

[longdog]

I wonder if they’ll warn anyone that they’ll be all liable for the other sides costs when they get any court action they’ve managed to start thrown out as being ‘without merit’.

They won't start anything. It'll just be another begging bowl for a fighting fund to look into the possibility of thinking about doing research into chance of starting a court case. No monies returned. Plus expenses of course.

[doublelong]

He is back new group old ideas and same old bullshit and a brand new goat……………..ee!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_IC0lxmUls
Disabling comments and ratings from the get go

[JimUk1]

He is back new group old ideas and same old bullshit and a brand new goat……………..ee!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_IC0lxmUls
Disabling comments and ratings from the get go

He’s actually looking dapper in that outfit and facial hair goatee.

Videos a load of old bollocks though.

[Burnaby49]

"If you've lost your property and had a mortgage you must join."

Wonder if he's thinking about someone near and dear. He's improved his delivery and using his hands for emphasis. Maybe he's been practicing in a mirror.

[JimUk1]

"If you've lost your property and had a mortgage you must join."

Wonder if he's thinking about someone near and dear. He's improved his delivery and using his hands for emphasis. Maybe he's been practicing in a mirror.

Indeed.

No mention of if you were irresponsible with your finances, which lead you to losing said property.

I’m guessing the truth still hurts this guy?

[AndyPandy]

I’m guessing the truth still hurts this guy?

It’s why he can never let it go, way to painful to accept you lost everything through your own sheer stupidity, very sad.

[YiamCross]

He's having big meetings with top police commissioners who are delighted that he's giving them lots of info on these mortgage frauds. Good old Bernecia has the courts on the run and the banks aren't even bothering to turn up to get possession orders now they know his magic formula is in play. Or something like that, it all turns into so much blah after a few minutes of listening.

They say there's no charge but somewhere in the small print, I think on the website, they let slip there will be some kind of pot of money to fight this case and the implication is it will come from donations by those who sign up. Usual form, say it's all free but demand donations at the door.

I look forward to seeing the banks crumble, I'm only interested in what they'll put in place to replace the financial system. Maybe Kindness Credits will have their day now.

[exiledscouser]

The Ombusdman service have yet to be informed of O'Bonkers and his excoriating stellar success. This ruling is from earlier this year;

Ms W is unhappy that Bank of Scotland plc (trading as Halifax) has fraudulently claimed mortgage payments from her. Ms W says that she deposited a promissory note which Halifax deposited as its asset and stole the cash value from her. Ms W cancelled her direct debits in June 2018 as she believes her obligation to pay Halifax has been extinguished. To settle the complaint Ms W wants her mortgage written off and for Halifax to pay her the value of her promissory note.

I am aware Ms W does not use a prefix with her name. But we are required to publish our decisions in such a way that consumers will not be identified. In the circumstances, I will refer to Ms W throughout this decision.

background

In 2004 Ms W (and her then partner) granted a mortgage to Halifax to secure a loan on a property. In 2010 the mortgage account was transferred into the sole name of Ms W. From the information on file it appears Ms W isn’t living in the property. She told Halifax in August 2018 that she thought she had consent to rent it out. Halifax says there is no record of this. In July 2018 Ms W complained to Halifax about the mortgage. She said she believed the mortgage had been mis-sold in 2004, and that Halifax had since sold on the mortgage to investors. As a result, Ms W was querying the validity of the mortgage and whether or not
Halifax was entitled to ask her to make repayments.

Halifax didn’t uphold the complaint, so Ms W brought it to us. A casework manager looked at the complaint. He explained that we don’t have the power to determine whether or not a mortgage is valid – only a court can do so. But he had seen nothing in the evidence to suggest Halifax wasn’t entitled to claim the mortgage repayments from Ms W. Ms W didn’t agree with this and asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. After receiving a copy of the title entries, Ms W has made another point. She said that the title entries show that Halifax, solicitors and the Land Registry changed her legal status because the form was completed in capital letters.

As a result, Ms W suggests that this “is not me” but is a “legal entity corporation”. Ms W says that at no point during the mortgage process did the “fiduciaries” provide full disclosure and that she didn’t agree to securitisation of her mortgage

Mrs. W is playing for high stakes. Not only does she want her mortgage written off, she's after them (the Halifax) paying her back the full value of her promissory note. Oh, and she gets to keep the house too.

my findings

I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I have some
disappointing news for Ms W; I’m not upholding the complaint. I’m familiar with the suggestion that, by signing a mortgage document, the signatory “creates
money”. There is no factual or legal basis to this notion. I can understand why it is a popular argument on internet forums which promulgate “Freeman on the Land” theories; if it were true in this case, then Ms W would have the benefit of owning the property, but without any obligation to pay back the money she borrowed to buy it. I’m required to decide what’s fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Because I’m satisfied Ms W borrowed the money from Halifax, it’s fair and reasonable for her to repay it.

Not so Mrs W.

Likewise, there is no evidence Halifax has securitised this mortgage. But Halifax is entitled to do so if it wishes – and it doesn’t have to tell Ms W if it does. Bank of Scotland Plc remains as registered proprietor of the legal charge. This means it’s entitled to collect payment from Ms W for the mortgage loan.

I’ve noted the points Ms W has made about her name being written in capital letters. I know it will be disappointing news for Ms W, but there is no significance in a name being written in capital letters. There is, however, a myth around this which has been spread on the internet, on forums and websites that deal with “Freeman on the Land” beliefs.

The belief is that each person is composed of two "entities". One is the living, breathing man or woman; the other is a "strawman" created by the Government. It does this by writing the name on the birth certificate in capital letters.
The theory is that in 1933 the Government went bankrupt when it stopped using the gold standard to back its currency. Needing a new type of collateral to back sterling, ‘Freemen on the Land’ think the Government pledged the future earning power of its citizens. As a result, they believe that at birth each individual has a secret "strawman" account at the Bank of England or the Treasury which contains several million pounds to represent their future earnings.

The suggestion is that in order to access the capital in the account, the name must
be written in capital letters. So for their “real” living person Freemen on the Land use variations of upper and lower case and punctuation, such as "John:Smith" or "John of the Family Smith" and might even include a thumbprint as a signature – sometimes in red ink to signify the “flesh and blood living man”. To access the capital in their “secret government account” they'll use "JOHN SMITH".

The argument is that all debts, obligations, and legal duties belong to the "strawman" individual, whereas all the rights and legal protections belong to the flesh-and-blood "natural person" or "freeman on the land" living person. The suggestion is that if someone takes out a mortgage and the name is written in capital letters this means the bank has accessed the “secret” account and already been paid the full amount of the loan from the “strawman” account associated with the name written in capital letters.

I am sorry to disappoint Ms W, but this is untrue.

The reality is that, by not making the mortgage repayments, Ms W is at risk of losing the property. If she’s renting it out, she is putting her tenants’ home at risk. Halifax has suspended legal action while we look at the complaint. If Halifax decides to continue with legal action, Ms W is free to raise in court all the points she’s made to us.

But I’m unaware of any case which has succeeded by a borrower arguing that their signature created the money to pay off the mortgage at inception. Ultimately, it’s up to the court to decide if Ms W’s mortgage is valid or not. Ms W might find it
helpful to take legal advice from a qualified solicitor before trying to raise in court any of the arguments she’s put to us about this. Advice is also available through Citizens Advice and Shelter. We can provide Ms W with contact details for those organisations, if she’d like us to.

My final decision

I appreciate Ms W will be disappointed, but my decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

Wonderfully written and puts a whole raft of FMOTL nonsense to death. Now, where's the two Michaels and their running-mate Tom Crawfraud. Surely Mrs. W will be dashing to join their class action!

[Siegfried Shrink]

Good to see an official with his boot firmly on the neck of pseudo-legal nonsense.

If Ms W has been paying the mortgage for 15 years she probably has a useful chunk of equity in the property to enjoy pissing away in the old, familiar pattern of futile law suits and contested reposession costs.

[ArthurWankspittle]

If Ms W has been paying the mortgage for 15 years she probably has a useful chunk of equity in the property to enjoy pissing away in the old, familiar pattern of futile law suits and contested reposession costs.

Or it is an Interest Only mortgage and she has just done a TMC and gone: How do I get out of paying back all this capital I don't have, in 4-5 years time?
Further, the lender will be entitled to possession and/or more money because she didn't tell them she wasn't living there and had rented it out.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Her position is obviously salvageable with some sensible advice and prompt action.

Then again, so was the Crawfords at one stage.