Quatloos!

littleFred wrote:The CPS don't have a copy of the warrant obtained by the bank for possession of No 3 Fern Chase, and similar documents. Well, no, they wouldn't. That was a civil matter, and no concern of the CPS.

Tom's delusions are now in a feedback loop. Because he believed the criminal case would let him argue ownership of the house, he's now crying foul because the criminal case doesn't contain documentation pertaining to ownership of the house.

And this is still on the record:

Mr Justice Phillips : Did you receive a warrant from the court?
Mr Crawford : No. I got a facsimile that looks like a warrant …

I know I bring that exchange up a lot, but it does seem like Tom defeats his entire campaign in ten words.

Here we go again. I'm less than 2 minutes in & we have already had dying dog & recently deceased MIL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTH6s8JYe6I

hucknallred wrote:Here we go again. I'm less than 2 minutes in & we have already had dying dog & recently deceased MIL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTH6s8JYe6I

Yes, and if I heard correctly - 'they threatened to put our dog down'.
Did they really Tom Crawford? According to your previous, you delayed putting the poor animal out of its misery for a day because you wanted to attend another eviction to show 'support'.
Once again, you have lied and used an innocent animal in the process to try and garner sympathy - despicable.

I see comments are disabled now. Previously, the first comment was along the lines of "do you mean the warrant that's readily available all over the Internet?"

TheNewSaint wrote:I see comments are disabled now. Previously, the first comment was along the lines of "do you mean the warrant that's readily available all over the Internet?"

Amanda accused the person that posted that comment of being a "quatlooser" lol

That seems to be the new name for anyone that disagrees with their BS

Colin123 wrote:

TheNewSaint wrote:I see comments are disabled now. Previously, the first comment was along the lines of "do you mean the warrant that's readily available all over the Internet?"

Amanda accused the person that posted that comment of being a "quatlooser" lol

That seems to be the new name for anyone that disagrees with their BS

I noticed that as well and to be honest I have never posted on any videos on youtube as I find it a waste of time (falling on deaf ears and all that). I would not be surprised if anybody from here does any more.
It is also funny how every single video Tom has ever done since he was evicted he has asked for feedback only to disable coms within an hour of the video going up.

The great Amanda has spoken

Whatever he paid, It wasn't enough lol

doublelong wrote:

Colin123 wrote:

TheNewSaint wrote:I see comments are disabled now. Previously, the first comment was along the lines of "do you mean the warrant that's readily available all over the Internet?"

Amanda accused the person that posted that comment of being a "quatlooser" lol

That seems to be the new name for anyone that disagrees with their BS

I noticed that as well and to be honest I have never posted on any videos on youtube as I find it a waste of time (falling on deaf ears and all that). I would not be surprised if anybody from here does any more.
It is also funny how every single video Tom has ever done since he was evicted he has asked for feedback only to disable coms within an hour of the video going up.

That's typical of so many people we discuss here. They can dish it out; but let someone point out that the emperor has no clothes, and either the ban-hammer comes down swiftly or comments get shut off.

Our old buddy David Merrill Van Pelt kicked a family member of mine off of Saving to Suitors on the mere suspicion that this person was my sockpuppet; and while this person made no critical comments on that forum, the mere fact that I made some here was enough to justify the ban. Of course, if I were to try to go on there myself, I'd never be allowed to remain for long, if I was allowed on there at all.

Colin123 wrote:The great Amanda has spoken

Whatever he paid, It wasn't enough lol

To the best of my knowledge, it would be relatively easy for Tom to show all the transactions on his mortgage, however, he has only chosen to show one or two documents , which proved his endowment policy was surrendered and that the bank (in line with policy at the time) wrote to customers advising them to switch to repayment.

It's pure semantics from camp Crawford, they will always read into words with meanings that are meaningless. The CPS probably did say that, but that's because someone was assaulted, not because someone didn't pay their mortgage.



There is no cure for stupid.

Amanda Pike wrote:The judge ORDERED the CPS to get these documents

Would that be the same judge who said this:

Let's not make the mistake of thinking we are dealing with the Bradford and Bingley. No-one else is in the court but you.

Tom is still trying to prove that the CPS's prosecution of him for criminal damage should have failed because he owned the house.

I don't know what the CPS used during the trial as evidence that Tom didn't own it, but it was clearly enough to convince the judge.

For Tom to succeed at this attack, he would need to show (1) the CPS evidence was wrong because of reasons A, B and C, and (2) that Tom was the owner, as evidenced by D, E and F.

Instead, he asks for what doesn't exist, eg "a valid warrant ... certified and attested by a lawfully sworn judge". The CPS have already proven their case. Tom can bleat "but they can't produce XYZ" as much as he wants but this won't overturn that verdict.

In ETFOTB Toms says, "although we’ve got this victory the battle is not won so were planning ahead".

Sorry Tom but the CPS haven't produced a document that they don't have and don't have any reason to have. This isn't any type of victory.

More nonsense from Amanda

The Crawfrauds will never acknowledge the fact that they stopped making the endowment payments.

Who is more deluded, Amanda or Tom? Are they equally deluded?

Amanda wrote:Well its been proven that the mortgage was changed without my parents consent...

It was agreed in court that the mortgage was never changed.

Amanda wrote:... its also been proven that my parents owe no money and in fact overpaid their agreed amount ...

It was proven in court that they hadn't repaid the capital, and still owed it.

Amanda wrote:This is wrong, victims of a crime being treated like criminals.

I have to agree here. One crime has been proven in court. The victim was the new owner of the house; the criminal was Tom. But Tom accuses the new owners of being criminals.

Amanda wrote:Or am I living in the twilight zone?

I needn't comment on this.

Again:

Mr Justice Phillips : Did you receive a warrant from the court?
Mr Crawford : No. I got a facsimile that looks like a warrant …

That does seem to shoot down the whole "we never got the warrant" act.

It also illustrates precisely how the Crawfords lie about this. They say "we never got the warrant" when what they mean is "we never got a warrant that meets our imaginary standards."

rumpelstilzchen wrote:The Crawfrauds will never acknowledge the fact that they stopped making the endowment payments.

Exactly. They maintained the due interest payments (mostly) for 25yrs, but did nothing about repaying the underlying capital. The lender offered to change them to a normal repayment mortgage decades ago, and they refused. This dismal catastrophe of retirement is entirely their own doing, but TC isn't man enough to deal with that.

Hercule Parrot wrote:

rumpelstilzchen wrote:The Crawfrauds will never acknowledge the fact that they stopped making the endowment payments.

Exactly. They maintained the due interest payments (mostly) for 25yrs, but did nothing about repaying the underlying capital. The lender offered to change them to a normal repayment mortgage decades ago, and they refused. This dismal catastrophe of retirement is entirely their own doing, but TC isn't man enough to deal with that.

The Crawfords appear to believe that paying the interest payments for twenty-five years is good enough but anyone who has a basic understanding of endowment mortgages would instantly see they are wrong on that point.

We know the Crawfords read this forum so I am going to issue a challenge to them.

Tom, Amanda, Sue and Craig. You repeatedly state that innocent people are having their homes stolen by corrupt banks working with corrupt barristers and a corrupt judiciary. My challenge is this: Show us one example where someone who had an interest only mortgage, had paid every monthly payment over the entire term and then had repaid the original sum borrowed upon completion of the mortgage term, subsequently had their house "stolen" by the original lender.

Looks like the Crawfrauds can't stay away from their old home

Eyesore? It's a vast improvement. I'm interested in it now

JimUk1 wrote: Eyesore? It's a vast improvement. I'm interested in it now

i was thinking the same thing The new owners have done a fine job and I will guarantee the neighbours will think so too.