UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Hercule Parrot]

Yeurgh - that man is a seething mass of spiteful stupidity.

[littleFred]

A phone conversation between Bradley Knight and Mr Ebert, sometime after Tom's judgement was given on 14 May, sheds some light. They discuss Tom's case from 9m 30s to 17m 50s, but the rest of of the tape places it in context: Mr Ebert has won 101% of his cases, according to him. Bradley asks why Mr Ebert is still bankrupt and hasn't got his properties back? Well, because the courts are corrupt etc etc. But Mr Ebert won. He has won all of his cases.

Mr Ebert's definition of a "win" is whether, in his own mind, he won. What the judgement says doesn't matter. If Mr Ebert says he won, that is all that matters.

Of Tom's case, Mr Ebert says:

We won a huge case, a remarkable case. [...] The order is a fake order. [...] If you owe the capital on a mortgage, it is illegal to issue possession proceedings. [...] The court never issued a warrant. [...] We are going to insist that they add in brackets, notice of eviction, not a warrant. [...] We will write to the court a clarification of the points on the order. The order is not accurate, is misleading and false.

[JonnyL]

Shocking!

[wanglepin]

Of Tom's case, Mr Ebert says:

We won a huge case, a remarkable case. [...] The order is a fake order. [...] If you owe the capital on a mortgage, it is illegal to issue possession proceedings. [...] The court never issued a warrant. [...] We are going to insist that they add in brackets, notice of eviction, not a warrant. [...] We will write to the court a clarification of the points on the order. The order is not accurate, is misleading and false.

So Ebert is still very much in charge of Crawford's affairs. More fool Him, I didn't think it (or should that be Crawford) could get any sillyer.

[JonnyL]

And yet there's people in the land of the 'woo' believing this idiot and treating every word he says as gospel.

[IDIOT]

A phone conversation between Bradley Knight and Mr Ebert, sometime after Tom's judgement was given on 14 May, sheds some light. They discuss Tom's case from 9m 30s to 17m 50s, but the rest of of the tape places it in context: Mr Ebert has won 101% of his cases, according to him. Bradley asks why Mr Ebert is still bankrupt and hasn't got his properties back? Well, because the courts are corrupt etc etc. But Mr Ebert won. He has won all of his cases.

Mr Ebert's definition of a "win" is whether, in his own mind, he won. What the judgement says doesn't matter. If Mr Ebert says he won, that is all that matters.

Of Tom's case, Mr Ebert says:

We won a huge case, a remarkable case. [...] The order is a fake order. [...] If you owe the capital on a mortgage, it is illegal to issue possession proceedings. [...] The court never issued a warrant. [...] We are going to insist that they add in brackets, notice of eviction, not a warrant. [...] We will write to the court a clarification of the points on the order. The order is not accurate, is misleading and false.

BK can barely string a sentence together but Ebert is inherent. I can barely believe what I just heard from this gobshites mouth let alone being in TC's shoes having him stand up in court. This prats beliefs are beyond embarrassing.

[IDIOT]

A phone conversation between Bradley Knight and Mr Ebert, sometime after Tom's judgement was given on 14 May, sheds some light. They discuss Tom's case from 9m 30s to 17m 50s, but the rest of of the tape places it in context: Mr Ebert has won 101% of his cases, according to him. Bradley asks why Mr Ebert is still bankrupt and hasn't got his properties back? Well, because the courts are corrupt etc etc. But Mr Ebert won. He has won all of his cases.

Mr Ebert's definition of a "win" is whether, in his own mind, he won. What the judgement says doesn't matter. If Mr Ebert says he won, that is all that matters.

Of Tom's case, Mr Ebert says:

We won a huge case, a remarkable case. [...] The order is a fake order. [...] If you owe the capital on a mortgage, it is illegal to issue possession proceedings. [...] The court never issued a warrant. [...] We are going to insist that they add in brackets, notice of eviction, not a warrant. [...] We will write to the court a clarification of the points on the order. The order is not accurate, is misleading and false.

BK can barely string a sentence together but Ebert is incoherent. I can barely believe what I just heard from this gobshites mouth let alone being in TC's shoes having him stand up in court. This prats beliefs are beyond embarrassing.

[Hercule Parrot]

We won a huge case, a remarkable case. [...] The order is a fake order. [...] If you owe the capital on a mortgage, it is illegal to issue possession proceedings. [...] The court never issued a warrant. [...] We are going to insist that they add in brackets, notice of eviction, not a warrant. [...] We will write to the court a clarification of the points on the order. The order is not accurate, is misleading and false.

That presumably refers to their laughable "Request Review and Revise" submission, which would tell the Judge where he had gone wrong. I don't think there's been any news on that yet, perhaps HHJ Godsmark is still laughing...

[PeanutGallery]

We won a huge case, a remarkable case. [...] The order is a fake order. [...] If you owe the capital on a mortgage, it is illegal to issue possession proceedings. [...] The court never issued a warrant. [...] We are going to insist that they add in brackets, notice of eviction, not a warrant. [...] We will write to the court a clarification of the points on the order. The order is not accurate, is misleading and false.

That presumably refers to their laughable "Request Review and Revise" submission, which would tell the Judge where he had gone wrong. I don't think there's been any news on that yet, perhaps HHJ Godsmark is still laughing...

I'm not sure Ebert lives in the same world as the rest of us. The level of cognitive dissonance he seems to operate under is the sort of level I've only seen approached by others on very high doses of very strange and unique substances.

The more I see about the Ebert the more I cannot understand how he was capable of amassing the property empire he lost. Him losing it, that I can understand, that makes sense, but the only way I can see this man ever having a thousand properties is if he started with two thousand.

[Jeffrey]

I think I've found the smoking gun in CRIMINAL BANKS EXPOSED... THE EVIDENCE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNk1CubxwA

Tom waves the 1999 letter as evidence of that the bank had changed his mortgage.



Tom tries to pass it off as if the letter was speaking about something that had been done yet the text clearly shows that it's a proposal. Tom tries to hide the paragraph that explains that but accidentally leaves in the chunk saying "let me know your decision in the pre-paid envelope".

The combination of Tom deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the letter and actively trying to conceal the contents of the letter means, to me, that this was not a case of confusion on Tom's part but rather constructive fraud. He had to know the statements he was making on video were false.

[Normal Wisdom]

I think I've found the smoking gun in CRIMINAL BANKS EXPOSED... THE EVIDENCE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNk1CubxwA

Tom waves the 1999 letter as evidence of that the bank had changed his mortgage.



Tom tries to pass it off as if the letter was speaking about something that had been done yet the text clearly shows that it's a proposal. Tom tries to hide the paragraph that explains that but accidentally leaves in the chunk saying "let me know your decision in the pre-paid envelope".

The combination of Tom deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the letter and actively trying to conceal the contents of the letter means, to me, that this was not a case of confusion on Tom's part but rather constructive fraud. He had to know the statements he was making on video were false.

Yes that's the point. Mrs C spoke to them in January 1999 and as a result they made the offer of changing the mortgage to a repayment or leaving it as an endowment.

Para 32 of the judgement refers to the contact from Mrs C in 1999 and her concern that they still had "a £41,800 loan on interest only having surrendered the policy 4 years before (i.e. in 1995) when having difficulty paying the mortgage". In fact we know that the policy was actually surrendered in 1992.

So my take on the timeline is:

1991 - Mrs C stops making monthly payments of the Endowment Policy premium because they are struggling to pay the interest on the loan

1992 - The EP lapses due to premiums having been ceased in the previous year. The policy is "cashed up" and the sum of £178.75 transferred to the mortgage account

1999 - Mrs C telephones B&B about her concern that the EP was surrendered "4 years" previously i.e. in 1995. I think she assumed B&B would have been made aware of this. In fact this comes as news to B&B. Mrs C is invited into the branch for a face-to-face meeting at which they complete a Customer Needs Analysis form (which she signs) identifying the option to convert the mortgage to a repayment type. B&B formerly write to the Crawford's with the offer to either make the change to a repayment or continue the interest only endowment loan. Because of Mrs C's assumption that B&B must have known about the policy ceasing in 1995 (sic) B&B generously offer to backdate the change to 1995 and offer an apology and gifts for the confusion. Tom, having apparently not been involved in any of these discussions, steps in, completely misunderstands the situation and the fun begins ...

[vampireLOREN]

I think I've found the smoking gun in CRIMINAL BANKS EXPOSED... THE EVIDENCE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNk1CubxwA

Tom waves the 1999 letter as evidence of that the bank had changed his mortgage.



Tom tries to pass it off as if the letter was speaking about something that had been done yet the text clearly shows that it's a proposal. Tom tries to hide the paragraph that explains that but accidentally leaves in the chunk saying "let me know your decision in the pre-paid envelope".

The combination of Tom deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the letter and actively trying to conceal the contents of the letter means, to me, that this was not a case of confusion on Tom's part but rather constructive fraud. He had to know the statements he was making on video were false.

Yes that's the point. Mrs C spoke to them in January 1999 and as a result they made the offer of changing the mortgage to a repayment or leaving it as an endowment.

Para 32 of the judgement refers to the contact from Mrs C in 1999 and her concern that they still had "a £41,800 loan on interest only having surrendered the policy 4 years before (i.e. in 1995) when having difficulty paying the mortgage". In fact we know that the policy was actually surrendered in 1992.

So my take on the timeline is:

1991 - Mrs C stops making monthly payments of the Endowment Policy premium because they are struggling to pay the interest on the loan

1992 - The EP lapses due to premiums having been ceased in the previous year. The policy is "cashed up" and the sum of £178.75 transferred to the mortgage account

1999 - Mrs C telephones B&B about her concern that the EP was surrendered "4 years" previously i.e. in 1995. I think she assumed B&B would have been made aware of this. In fact this comes as news to B&B. Mrs C is invited into the branch for a face-to-face meeting at which they complete a Customer Needs Analysis form (which she signs) identifying the option to convert the mortgage to a repayment type. B&B formerly write to the Crawford's with the offer to either make the change to a repayment or continue the interest only endowment loan. Because of Mrs C's assumption that B&B must have known about the policy ceasing in 1995 (sic) B&B generously offer to backdate the change to 1995 and offer an apology and gifts for the confusion. Tom, having apparently not been involved in any of these discussions, steps in, completely misunderstands the situation and the fun begins ...

Well Done Jeffrey, Yes it stares you in the face when you see it. And Thank You Norm for that excellent analysis . It is funny when something "feels" wrong it usually is, Uncle Tom is a fly little devil.

[Normal Wisdom]

Yes that's the point. Mrs C spoke to them in January 1999 and as a result they made the offer of changing the mortgage to a repayment or leaving it as an endowment.

Para 32 of the judgement refers to the contact from Mrs C in 1999 and her concern that they still had "a £41,800 loan on interest only having surrendered the policy 4 years before (i.e. in 1995) when having difficulty paying the mortgage". In fact we know that the policy was actually surrendered in 1992.

So my take on the timeline is:

1991 - Mrs C stops making monthly payments of the Endowment Policy premium because they are struggling to pay the interest on the loan

1992 - The EP lapses due to premiums having been ceased in the previous year. The policy is "cashed up" and the sum of £178.75 transferred to the mortgage account

1999 - Mrs C telephones B&B about her concern that the EP was surrendered "4 years" previously i.e. in 1995. I think she assumed B&B would have been made aware of this. In fact this comes as news to B&B. Mrs C is invited into the branch for a face-to-face meeting at which they complete a Customer Needs Analysis form (which she signs) identifying the option to convert the mortgage to a repayment type. B&B formerly write to the Crawford's with the offer to either make the change to a repayment or continue the interest only endowment loan. Because of Mrs C's assumption that B&B must have known about the policy ceasing in 1995 (sic) B&B generously offer to backdate the change to 1995 and offer an apology and gifts for the confusion. Tom, having apparently not been involved in any of these discussions, steps in, completely misunderstands the situation and the fun begins ...

Well Done Jeffrey, Yes it stares you in the face when you see it. And Thank You Norm for that excellent analysis . It is funny when something "feels" wrong it usually is, Uncle Tom is a fly little devil.

This is the start of Tom's perception that B&B had done something wrong. He has said more than once that the apology and gifts must prove that. He obviously never understood why the apology was offered and simply put his own interpretation on it. The crazy thing is that if B&B hadn't been so generous this problem might never have occurred or at least not in this way.

[vampireLOREN]

And yet there's people in the land of the 'woo' believing this idiot and treating every word he says as gospel.

What is really funny Guy ,Tom and co treat him as the Chosen One and BKl seems to be his advisor and he treats him with contempt. I am glad these people found the Learned Ebert.

[Jeffrey]

He obviously never understood why the apology was offered and simply put his own interpretation on it.

No, I'm saying I specifically reject that interpretation or at least find it very unlikely. We have so far: 1. The failure to disclose the second $5,000 mortgage. and 2. Failure to disclose the lapse of the endowment policy. Meanwhile he deliberately misleads the viewer about the contents of the letter, not consistent with him being confused about the contents of the letter.

Meanwhile his story keeps changing concerning 1999.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3mtVMWuTUY

In this interview he tells the interviewer that he found out about the Mortgage situation when a B&B whistleblower contacted his wife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P79o4hgvDL4

In this version, his wife goes to get extra life insurance (odd for a woman her age), and the life insurance guy tells the wife she'll never pay off the mortgage?

I thought maybe Tom was just ignorant, I don't think that's the case anymore. He was lying and he knew he was lying.

[littleFred]

In SovCit-land, any action or inaction "proves" some assertion desired by the SovCits.

The gifts "prove" the bank committed fraud.

The absence of B&B's solicitor from the judgement "proves" she would have been arrested.

B&B didn't claim costs, and this "proves" they lost.

SovCits think that very weak evidence constitutes "proof".

[rumpelstilzchen]

The combination of Tom deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the letter and actively trying to conceal the contents of the letter means, to me, that this was not a case of confusion on Tom's part but rather constructive fraud. He had to know the statements he was making on video were false.

I agree. IMO he was deliberately lying.

[midjit-gems]

Not forgetting the newspaper reports previously posted "it's a wonderful life" where he claimed to know nothing about the lack of endowment as late as 2007!

To me it smacks of a con from the get go. I believe Mrs C made the initial mistake, tried to sort it, tom waded in, it all went tits up, then he found goodf!

The initial videos are way too well rehearsed, the branding of the hat, the son who is an Internet marketer/advertiser would have seen the potential in making him stand out, give us all something to latch onto and it worked.

Until the full Web of lies became unravelled

[Bones]

Everytime Tom and Guy do a video they seem to show more and more actual evidence that what Tom had claimed was nothing more than a pack of lies. I wonder if this is what it was like during the hearing

[Bones]