UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Bones]

get a read of this if you haven't already.
http://self-realisation.com/equity/bank ... a-victory/

The above was written, I presume, as it is on his website by Michael Waugh. He does have a history of making claims of success when a judgement says otherwise.

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html

7 Conclusion
In the result I hold:

1. that there is no realistically arguable defence to the claim for the sums due under the facility letter and the Bank is entitled to summary judgment in respect of the sums claimed.

2. that the Trustees are not estopped from relying on the defects in the execution of the Legal Charge and that Mr Waugh is entitled to a declaration to that effect.

3. that the Legal Charge was, nonetheless, effective as an equitable charge. Whether or not the Bank is entitled to an order compelling the Trustees to execute further documents will be determined at the hearing when the judgment is handed down.

Michael considers the above to have been a victory for him. In case anyone else thinks this was a success, this is a link to the property now being sold

http://www.pattinsoncommercial.co.uk/Co ... lds/153845

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/propertyMedi ... 75&index=0

The above is a link to the brochure of the agents which states it is being sold by receivers.

Well done Michael yet another victory you were involved in

[littleFred]

get a read of this if you haven't already.
http://self-realisation.com/equity/bank ... a-victory/

Michael's junk is a long-winded way of saying, "I haven't a clue what happened." Or perhaps, "Tom really won, so where's my fee?"

Or perhaps he really attended a different hearing, and read a different judgement.

... the irrefutable fact that the bank’s directors and its legal representatives have failed to verify the amount claimed to be due and outstanding ...

The case didn't hinge on that. The amount was incidental. The judge wasn't asked to rule on that. He was asked to rule on whether possession could occur. As two months' arrears were outstanding, the answer was "Yes".

... the fully nationalised bank has nevertheless “waived” its purported right to claim more than £30,000 in costs ...

Nope. These are added to Tom's debts.

The only possibility of recouping those legal costs is the enforcement of an imaginary warrant for the eviction of Tom and his unfailingly resilient family ...

Yes. I'm afraid that is what will happen.

... the bank will not seek to enforce it [the warrant], ...

Michael might think that. I think he is mistaken.

... in the event county court bailiffs take possession of a property which they have no legal, equitable or moral right to take.

They have a legal right. That's what the judge ruled.

... and the false testimony of the mortgagees’ legal representatives.

Tom disputed some of the details, such as the exact date the assurance policy was cashed in. But he agreed with the essential points, that the mortgage had never changed, and that he was more than two months in arrears.

[guilty]

Ooooooh! I'm frightened....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABubdtOPL8g

[slowsmile]

Ooooooh! I'm frightened....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABubdtOPL8g

And so you should be - look at all the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JonnyL]

Ooooooh! I'm frightened....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABubdtOPL8g

And so you should be - look at all the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sounds like another protest march with poorly written banners, maybe this time they're going to climb up and occupy a lamppost.

[Losleones]

Ooooooh! I'm frightened....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABubdtOPL8g

And so you should be - look at all the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even though his talks are terribly presented you'd have thought he'd get through a minute long vid without stuttering. Looked half cut too

[wanglepin]

A defeat is still a victory

This is Roger Hayes all over again.
Michael Waugh

As things stand, a victory dressed in the clothes of defeat is still a victory, no matter what those who have sold their souls for two grand a month would have you believe.

Roger Hayes:

“Roger Hayes is not bankrupt, but the person created by the government act of 1666 Mr Roger Hayes the person is bankrupt”.

And this is classic Roger Hayes.
Michael Waugh

For those of us with the eyes to see and the ears to hear, that is certainly a victory worth celebrating in such a tyrannical, corporatist, police state.

Roger Hayes

“Judges [and Roger Hayes] know how the ‘legal fiction’ applies to each of us, but barristers, solicitors, Magistrates and politicians mostly do not – it is a closely guarded secret”.

It is all about’ being in the know’ I suppose.

http://self-realisation.com/equity/bank ... a-victory/

[wanglepin]

Ooooooh! I'm frightened....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABubdtOPL8g

" Keep them Peeled" This is just another of those open ended , "watch this space" fillers . One of his classics is a 30 second video saying " Newsflash. We are going to arrest a peodaphile very soon, watch this space". Not heard a word since.
I think this idiot misses not seeing himself on his own site.

[Normal Wisdom]

Ooooooh! I'm frightened....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABubdtOPL8g

" Keep them Peeled" This is just another of those open ended , "watch this space" fillers . One of his classics is a 30 second video saying " Newsflash. We are going to arrest a peodaphile very soon, watch this space". Not heard a word since.
I think this idiot misses not seeing himself on his own site.

I'm betting this will be related to his never ending hunt for paedophiles and encouragement of Mickey Summers to yet more embarrassing excesses

[JonnyL]

Also there could be issue's regarding Danny Bamping, something he said in that letter seemed to be pie in the sky, but if he's telling the truth it could cause problems, it won't stop the eviction happening but it will give the Crawford's cronies something to cheer about.

[guilty]

http://self-realisation.com/equity/bank ... a-victory/

... it is perfectly reasonable to assume, given recent events, that HM Secret Services have been be employed by HM Government to convince the public, via the Rothschild-controlled mainstream and agent provocateur dominated social media, that it is the Crawfords who are liable for the losses of the Bradford & Bingley, and not the other way round.

....and many other mad claims that make no sense.

[PeanutGallery]

http://self-realisation.com/equity/bank ... a-victory/

It is, therefore, somewhat appropriate that I coincidentally feel compelled to point out to all those foolish enough to trust others to do their research for them, that the effects of the judgment would have been no different if the judge had made the following orders:

1. Permission to appeal out of time is granted, but the appeal cannot succeed on the ground that Bradford & Bingley cannot verify that the amount claimed is due and outstanding. In effect, there is no valid judgment to appeal as a result of this fatal irregularity.

2. Upon the evidence before the court, there also appears to be a cause of action for Tom and Sue Crawford to issue a fresh claim to impeach the possession order and warrant appealed, on the ground that the bank has relied upon dishonest witness statements relating to the amount allegedly owned by the Crawfords. It moreover appears, given the significant public interest in this case, that the most just and expedient way to deal with these issues is within the scope of this decision, which is within the boundaries of the inherent jurisdiction of the court to deal with its own judgments and orders, rather than within the scope of the appellants’ application for permission to appeal.

3. The evidential failure of the bank to verify the amount claimed on the claim form and in the particulars of claim, prevented this court from carrying out its duty to give the alleged debtor ample opportunity to repay a certain sum, which needed to be proven to be due and outstanding. Such a failure must be considered a clog on the equity of redemption, which is generally a fatal impediment in any possession claim by a mortgagee.

4. It is also well established that no court will allow any party to keep a benefit that appears to have been obtained by fraudulent means. It would therefore be unjust to allow the claimant to retain the benefit of the order for possession.

In a further order of the court’s own motion, the claim and the particulars of claim are struck out, on the basis that the fraudulent claim of the claimant automatically vitiates their applications, which must be treated as if they had never been issued.

The possession order is therefore set aside as void, as are any and all orders and/or warrants which arose out of it.

There will be no order for costs, since there is no application for such before the court.

Actually the Judgement would have been very different if the Judge had said that. Which is why the Judge didn't actually say ANY of that. You can tell what the Judge meant because he said it. You want him to have said that, but he didn't. In fact the Judge pretty much wrote the opposite. He said that any argument about the exact amount could be dealt with after the property had sold, he wouldn't have said that if he didn't think the property was going to be sold and he didn't think that after it WAS sold the bank would then need to divide the money up with Tom.

I'm pretty sure it's bad form to rewrite a Judge's decision because you don't agree with it. It certainly has no legal standing and all those words aren't going to defeat the Bailiffs when they come knocking.

[vampireLOREN]

http://self-realisation.com/equity/bank ... a-victory/

It is, therefore, somewhat appropriate that I coincidentally feel compelled to point out to all those foolish enough to trust others to do their research for them, that the effects of the judgment would have been no different if the judge had made the following orders:

1. Permission to appeal out of time is granted, but the appeal cannot succeed on the ground that Bradford & Bingley cannot verify that the amount claimed is due and outstanding. In effect, there is no valid judgment to appeal as a result of this fatal irregularity.

2. Upon the evidence before the court, there also appears to be a cause of action for Tom and Sue Crawford to issue a fresh claim to impeach the possession order and warrant appealed, on the ground that the bank has relied upon dishonest witness statements relating to the amount allegedly owned by the Crawfords. It moreover appears, given the significant public interest in this case, that the most just and expedient way to deal with these issues is within the scope of this decision, which is within the boundaries of the inherent jurisdiction of the court to deal with its own judgments and orders, rather than within the scope of the appellants’ application for permission to appeal.

3. The evidential failure of the bank to verify the amount claimed on the claim form and in the particulars of claim, prevented this court from carrying out its duty to give the alleged debtor ample opportunity to repay a certain sum, which needed to be proven to be due and outstanding. Such a failure must be considered a clog on the equity of redemption, which is generally a fatal impediment in any possession claim by a mortgagee.

4. It is also well established that no court will allow any party to keep a benefit that appears to have been obtained by fraudulent means. It would therefore be unjust to allow the claimant to retain the benefit of the order for possession.

In a further order of the court’s own motion, the claim and the particulars of claim are struck out, on the basis that the fraudulent claim of the claimant automatically vitiates their applications, which must be treated as if they had never been issued.

The possession order is therefore set aside as void, as are any and all orders and/or warrants which arose out of it.

There will be no order for costs, since there is no application for such before the court.

Actually the Judgement would have been very different if the Judge had said that. Which is why the Judge didn't actually say ANY of that. You can tell what the Judge meant because he said it. You want him to have said that, but he didn't. In fact the Judge pretty much wrote the opposite. He said that any argument about the exact amount could be dealt with after the property had sold, he wouldn't have said that if he didn't think the property was going to be sold and he didn't think that after it WAS sold the bank would then need to divide the money up with Tom.

I'm pretty sure it's bad form to rewrite a Judge's decision because you don't agree with it. It certainly has no legal standing and all those words aren't going to defeat the Bailiffs when they come knocking.

If anything the Judges decision was written showing consideration and was for want of a better word written in a kindly manner. No shame on this whole shoddy bunch of chancers, with the "legalese" fraudulent mortgage and where did the money come from? bull shit.
The sheer audacity of their nonsense is astounding .

[Jeffrey]

These guys keep ignoring paragraph 100:

Due to the public interest I have attempted above to set out as simply as I can the law which applies in this case and my analysis of Mr Crawford’s legal submissions.

The judge intentionally wrote it as simply as possible. There is no secret meaning hidden anywhere.

[PeanutGallery]

Unfortunately I don't think the Judge could have written it simply enough for some to understand. If he had written TOM HAS LOST in big letters on a single piece of paper they'd still intentionally confuse themselves and misdirect their opinion on the verdict.

I did notice that over on GOODF, an existing member has posted up about the WeRe Bank and Tom Crawford threads being locked. The answer, which I understand to hav been given by the normally silent Jon Witterick (posting as GetOutOfDebtFree) explains:

After appealing for common sense and calm the arguments and attacks continued on both sides, they weren't going anywhere, so will be locked until things calm down

I would suggest that part of the reason the threads got out of hand was related to the choice of moderators at the site, who seemed unable to promote discussion or deal with opposing views. Of course the GOOF faithful blame the 'negative newbies', who did little more than read the Judgement as it was written.

I'm beginning to form an opinion on Mr Witterick, previously I didn't know much about him and wasn't prepared to give an opinion as it would be mostly speculation and I previously will admit to having given him the benefit of doubt as to his intent. While I still think he is simply mistaken about law and the efficacy of the tactics espoused, I also think he is too weak a person to stand up to Ceylon and the other promoters of garbage on his site. I think he fails to exercise any editorial control over the content or over what is promoted.

If he had strength of character he would have recognised that a part of the reason it got out of hand was the fact that any dissenting voice that disagreed with Ceylon's trooth would be banned and removed. He would therefore know that the impediment to discussion was his choice of moderator.

At best he is as much under Ceylon's thumb as Tom Crawford is Guy Taylor's and at worst he is a willing participant in their scams and schemes.

[slowsmile]

Ah well - SalliNae has just made it clear that in future dissent will not be tolerated.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 38#p390006

[Hercule Parrot]

I'm betting this will be related to his never ending hunt for paedophiles and encouragement of Mickey Summers to yet more embarrassing excesses

There's a video around of Mickey Summers standing outside a house and shouting abuse through a megaphone, abetted by two chav trolley riders and an unidentified camera operator. He's very likely to be arrested for BoP or public order offences if he carries on like that. He seems to have a very limited intellect, and I suspect someone is playing him like a glove puppet.

[grixit]

Ah well - SalliNae has just made it clear that in future dissent will not be tolerated.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 38#p390006

» Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:10 pm

there should be closed forum for WeRe verified members only, to exchange experience, build tactics, support Peter and each other, get to know each other and to build the community, as far from zombie trolls as possible, etc

And of course, for such a premium venue, which will require Configuration and other difficult operations, it will be necessary to charge a 5£ monthly membership surcharge.

[PeanutGallery]

Of course the moderators of such a forum would only need to be paid in Re.

[Normal Wisdom]

I'm betting this will be related to his never ending hunt for paedophiles and encouragement of Mickey Summers to yet more embarrassing excesses

There's a video around of Mickey Summers standing outside a house and shouting abuse through a megaphone, abetted by two chav trolley riders and an unidentified camera operator. He's very likely to be arrested for BoP or public order offences if he carries on like that. He seems to have a very limited intellect, and I suspect someone is playing him like a glove puppet.

BIB - have a guess who that might be. Actually, as per my post on the Ceylon thread i think Mickey is more of an automaton that a puppet.