So what secret manoeuvre Tom will be implementing is anyone's guess.
Of course there is always the possibility that Tom doesn't know what Tom will be doing.
One would have thought that if Tom Crawford was going to present and use as evidence Guy Taylors forensically examined fraudulent court stamps and documents as any type of defence that this he couldn't possibly do if these frauds are the subject of a ongoing Police Investigation. Which leads me to ask, what is Tom Crawford going to be producing for the court?
A WeRe bank cheaque???
If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?
Only just watched Tom's latest video. Without knowing what Tom's arguments to the court will be we can't judge how relevant or successful they will be. However based on his published beliefs I would doubt he would come up with anything relevant or anything that will change matters.
I believe this action will just lead to further troubles for him and place him into more debt. However what is concerning is the plan to turn this into a 'gathering' as it would seem that should Tom lose, then the mood may turn sour and events in Nottingham could take a turn for the worse, especially if this 'event' attracts as many as the previous attempts at eviction.
No doubt the puppet masters, Roger Hayes, Brian Gerrish, Guy Taylor et al are hoping for a riot or some sign of civil unrest as they could trumpet it into sounding like a much larger uprising or even try to make it seem like the start of a revolution, it won't be and it won't change anything although that won't stop them from naming it as such.
It is actually possible that Tom plans to present a WeRe Bank Cheque at court, which would further complicate matters and may lead to eventual criminal charges against Tom. If he does do this I think the eventual fall out will be interesting to see.
It is actually possible that Tom plans to present a WeRe Bank Cheque at court, which would further complicate matters and may lead to eventual criminal charges against Tom. If he does do this I think the eventual fall out will be interesting to see.
Oh I really hope so....This would be Wonderful.
If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?
It is actually possible that Tom plans to present a WeRe Bank Cheque at court, which would further complicate matters and may lead to eventual criminal charges against Tom. If he does do this I think the eventual fall out will be interesting to see.
Oh I really hope so....This would be Wonderful.
So do I but I don't believe even Tom Crawford is that stupid. There again, with the likes of Mark Haining Ceylon (standing on the sidelines) egging him on from affare, who knows what the idiot may do.
Normal Wisdom wrote:His interest payments on the loan would not change (interest rates not withstanding). He should also have been separately paying a premium for the endowment policy. I've tried numerous times but he will not say whether this ever started or whether it started then stopped. My bet is that for some reason the endowment policy never commenced, the bank realise dafter a few years and changed it to a repayment mortgage (with or without his permission) and then at his insistence back to an interest only loan.
This is my take on the sequence of mortgage events. He takes out an interest only + endowment mortgage. The lender does a review and works out the endowment is not going to pay the capital. There was a lot of this going on about, what, 7-8 years ago. They convert it into a repayment mortgage. Tom then gets into further financial problems, ill health, whatever so the lender swaps his mortgage back to interest only. This minimises the payments and, if you aren't being stupid about it, is what Income Support (a government benefit for the colonials reading this) pays. In a lot of cases this is enough to prevent foreclosure (I mean repossession, I'm typing in American again) because the IS rate is usually within a few pounds of the actual interest only rate on the loan. The lender is relatively happy because they are getting their interest paid-ish, and the mortgagee should be happy because they still have a house. Everyone kicks the can down the road, the lender hopes they will get paid somehow sometime, the mortgagee keeps the house until sometime in the future when they do something to sort the mortgage out. And the courts are happy that they avoid all the petty repossession cases. Only the most argumentative dickhead is going to go to court because they are being underpaid by £7.32 a month. And then the law says you have to be two or more (full) months payments in arrears before they will even consider doing something.
The only problem with this scenario is that he didn't get cancer until 2011 but the business of the "part and part" mortgage and subsequent change to interest only happened around 2000. For some time he said that he found out that it was interest only in 2006/7, now he is saying it was in 2002. As I say I don't think it matters because in court on 1st May the details of his actual situation will probably be lost in the welter of claims about jurisdiction, fraud, seals, signatures and common law.
It is interesting that Roger Hayes is apparently turning up at the Common Law jamboree that day. I wonder if there's any chance that "what Tom is planning" is to arrest the judge? Guy has already talked about their right to occupy crown and public buildings and using cable ties to arrest people. Guy also says that the event will probably spill over into the Saturday too and I notice that Mickey Summers is arranging a protest against the current City Council and the Council House that afternoon.
I do get the feeling that Guy and co. really want to up the ante. Hopefully the authorities will respond appropriately.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Normal Wisdom wrote:His interest payments on the loan would not change (interest rates not withstanding). He should also have been separately paying a premium for the endowment policy. I've tried numerous times but he will not say whether this ever started or whether it started then stopped. My bet is that for some reason the endowment policy never commenced, the bank realise dafter a few years and changed it to a repayment mortgage (with or without his permission) and then at his insistence back to an interest only loan.
This is my take on the sequence of mortgage events. He takes out an interest only + endowment mortgage. The lender does a review and works out the endowment is not going to pay the capital. There was a lot of this going on about, what, 7-8 years ago. They convert it into a repayment mortgage. Tom then gets into further financial problems, ill health, whatever so the lender swaps his mortgage back to interest only. This minimises the payments and, if you aren't being stupid about it, is what Income Support (a government benefit for the colonials reading this) pays. In a lot of cases this is enough to prevent foreclosure (I mean repossession, I'm typing in American again) because the IS rate is usually within a few pounds of the actual interest only rate on the loan. The lender is relatively happy because they are getting their interest paid-ish, and the mortgagee should be happy because they still have a house. Everyone kicks the can down the road, the lender hopes they will get paid somehow sometime, the mortgagee keeps the house until sometime in the future when they do something to sort the mortgage out. And the courts are happy that they avoid all the petty repossession cases. Only the most argumentative dickhead is going to go to court because they are being underpaid by £7.32 a month. And then the law says you have to be two or more (full) months payments in arrears before they will even consider doing something.
The only problem with this scenario is that he didn't get cancer until 2011 but the business of the "part and part" mortgage and subsequent change to interest only happened around 2000. For some time he said that he found out that it was interest only in 2006/7, now he is saying it was in 2002. As I say I don't think it matters because in court on 1st May the details of his actual situation will probably be lost in the welter of claims about jurisdiction, fraud, seals, signatures and common law.
It is interesting that Roger Hayes is apparently turning up at the Common Law jamboree that day. I wonder if there's any chance that "what Tom is planning" is to arrest the judge? Guy has already talked about their right to occupy crown and public buildings and using cable ties to arrest people. Guy also says that the event will probably spill over into the Saturday too and I notice that Mickey Summers is arranging a protest against the current City Council and the Council House that afternoon.
I do get the feeling that Guy and co. really want to up the ante. Hopefully the authorities will respond appropriately.
I am seriously thinking of making the trip, if its videoed you will know which one is me as I will be the only person not holding up a phone. You could not make any of this up.
If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?
wanglepin wrote:
So do I but I don't believe even Tom Crawford is that stupid. There again, with the likes of Mark Haining Ceylon (standing on the sidelines) egging him on from affare, who knows what the idiot may do.
I don't know. So far Tom hasn't weighed in with much on Peter of Englands scam, however I suspect he endorses it, certainly he was present for Peter's talks to the GooF's. At the moment it's the only plan I can think of that might have some, albeit temporary, prospects of limited success (In that it will buy him exactly the amount of time it will take for the court to work out that the Cheque is bogus).
wanglepin wrote:One would have thought that if Tom Crawford was going to present and use as evidence Guy Taylors forensically examined fraudulent court stamps and documents as any type of defence that this he couldn't possibly do if these frauds are the subject of a ongoing Police Investigation. Which leads me to ask, what is Tom Crawford going to be producing for the court?
Whatever it is, it will not have the effect which Seedy Ceylon imagines. E&W Civil Procedure Rules do not welcome the sudden revelation of new evidence or arguments. If it wasn't disclosed in advance of the hearing, then there is a presumption that the other party can have an adjournment to consider it. Otherwise parties would have an incentive to keep their cards covered, and tie up the court's time with trump and counter-trump theatricals.
So when Tom unveils Surprise Tactic #1147, the bank will pause for a moment to see if it can be easily discredited. If it cannot, they will ask for an adjournment and a wasted costs order against him. Tom will proclaim this a famous victory, not stopping to think that it is being funded by deduction from his residual settlement after the house is sold. And then the legal process will continue, like the inexorable jaws of a vice.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
The best thing about Tom's hearing is that all the so called big gun SOVCIT's will be in attendance each trying out their respective crazy ideas.
Hopefully the case will deal with all of them and show them to be as stupid as we already know them to be.
Can't wait to see them trying to arrest everyone in the court
I would say that with them all in attendance they will have no excuse for when this goes tits up but I am sure they are preparing their excuses already and will all drop tom, as soon as the case is lost and for ceylon, tom will be nothing more than a distant memory.
Bones wrote:The best thing about Tom's hearing is that all the so called big gun SOVCIT's will be in attendance each trying out their respective crazy ideas.
I don't see them lining-up to present their arguments. The court wouldn't recognise their standing to participate, unless preceded by a served witness statement. If Tom serves a witness statement based on OPCA myths, the bank will successfully apply to have that witness excluded. The interests of justice are not served by tying up a courtroom for hours (days?) while various nutters explain their beliefs, and the judge will need no encouragement to refuse that.
I think it's probably somewhat simpler. They'll disrupt the hearing, ignore the word "adjourned" and falsely crow that the bank have abandoned their claim.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
Or the court, having got wind of the assorted nuttery about to descend on proceedings and aware that Tom is an OPCA litigant with a rather questionable understanding of law, will decide to hold the hearing in private and just not let the great unwashed in.
Which will mean we'll likely be treated to a video, like the one involving Paula Campbell, of Tom coming out of court to denounce the corruption, proclaim that the fight isn't and that the dark forces may have won the battle but he'll win the war.
On the other hand, it might be a good quick method to do a fast roundup of all the ones with outstanding warrants.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
[Off topic, sorry. Glynis Craggs has been mentioned on this thread. She has now been evicted. See video STOLEN HOUSE, SUNNY BROW, illegal re-possession 4-24-2015 VID (3) and a couple of others on the same channel. The videos don't mention her not paying the mortgage. It's all about flaws in paperwork. The videographer (great nose-rings, BTW, but I wonder if they are symbolic?) mentions a rule I've never header of before, eg at 18m 45s: warrants don't just have to be signed by the judge, but also by the clerk, acting as a witness.]
The videographer above is Truth Machine, a sometimes compatriot and follower of "Commonly known as Dom" aka Dominic Lohan. He describes himself as a former gulf war syndrome suffering veteran who has become an 'artist' I don't know what art he produces, however I do know he was a supporter (and video'd the proceedings) when Dom found himself on trial for possession of Cannabis following his scuffle at Occupy.
It is possible that he has been left with some trauma following the gulf war or his service in the military and it is true that a large number of veterans are simply discarded when they are no longer of use to the military.
He's not much of a guru or a key figure in the process and only pop's up every now and again producing video's that just repeat notions already made or that seem to be protesting the various difficulties he is encountering in life (such as not being able to afford things or being barred from pubs).
Perhaps it's my cognitive dissonance playing up again but I get the feeling that they are expecting Tom to lose in court. Why wouldn't he?
I see that Mickey Summers is also planning a protest event at the Council Offices on 2nd May and Guy is talking about the "Common Law" event on 1st May running into a second day and of course about exercising their "right" to occupy crown and public buildings. I wonder if the two are linked?
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
littleFred wrote:[Off topic, sorry. Glynis Craggs has been mentioned on this thread. She has now been evicted. See video STOLEN HOUSE, SUNNY BROW, illegal re-possession 4-24-2015 VID (3) and a couple of others on the same channel. The videos don't mention her not paying the mortgage. It's all about flaws in paperwork. The videographer (great nose-rings, BTW, but I wonder if they are symbolic?) mentions a rule I've never header of before, eg at 18m 45s: warrants don't just have to be signed by the judge, but also by the clerk, acting as a witness.]
Well spotted. I didn't see any mention of that on GOODF or Ceylon's YouTube channels. Glynis has got Simon Spaniard, GOODF and her own stupidity to thank for that.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
littleFred wrote:mentions a rule I've never header of before, eg at 18m 45s: warrants don't just have to be signed by the judge, but also by the clerk, acting as a witness.
Ah ha! More evidence that they're all in it together!
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
A WeRe bank cheaque???