Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Firthy2002]

Some class comments on the troll warning thread on EFOTB especially from Amanda!

If I wasn't already blocked (for reasons unknown) I'd be giving a reminder to Amanda about recent history.

[notorial dissent]

In her worldview, troll is someone who doesn't slavishly agree with her???

[TheNewSaint]

Pretty much. The Crawford clan is so thin-skinned, ignorant, and incapable of taking criticism that they view any discussion of their situation as a personal attack. None of what's been said rises to the level of ordinary Internet trolling, much less anything legally actionable. And from the lack of responses on GOODF and elsewhere, it looks like even the freetard crowd is getting tired of their act. Good; these idiots have strutted and fretted enough.

[aesmith]

At least one post's gone from the Goofy thread. I wonder how long this last one will last, posted at 15:59 ..

I just think it's important that everyone realises Tom has been lying to us since day one and it seems that nothing has changed. I am looking for to him getting the trolls in court, although he has been going on about that for over a year now.

[TheNewSaint]

I just think it's important that everyone realises Tom has been lying to us since day one and it seems that nothing has changed. I am looking for to him getting the trolls in court, although he has been going on about that for over a year now.

"Tom has been lying to us since day one, but I am excited about his next legal action." Christ, these people are stupid.

[Arthur Rubin]

I know of no lawyer who would advise losing a case to win a case on an appeal. Winning is best early, and nothing is served dragging things out, unless you are being paid by the hour in beer for you common law legal advice.

I suppose, if the court you are in doesn't have the authority to issue the ruling you want, and there is reason to believe that the higher court can and will issue that ruling....

But that's not the case, here....

[Edited to add]. I didn't mean to imply that it is ethical to intentionally lose a case, only that it can be ethical to bring a case that cannot be won in that court.

[Bones]

EFOTB keep posting this nonsense



http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 44w273.htm

Carmel Butler, used to post on the Consumer Action Group, using the name Supersleuth. Her claims were proven to be wrong on CAG, as she had no understanding of legal ownership and s.136 of the LOP 1925. Whilst I understand Carmel has done the rounds on the speakers circuit, something that is often overlooked is

Case Reference: B5/2009/1187

Title: Basinghall Finance PLC v Butler

Type:Permission to Appeal

Appeal/Application: for permission to appeal and a stay of execution

Hearing Status: Fixed on 27-Oct-09
Venue: London

Constitution: THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

Case Result: Refused on 27-Oct-09

Tracking Information:
27-Oct-09: Case given a final judgment
06-Aug-09: Case renewed to oral hearing
31-Jul-09: Case passed to Associate for Order to be drawn
30-Jul-09: Permission to Appeal referred to Lord/Lady Justice
15-Jul-09: Bundle(s) approved
08-Jun-09: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor to request bundles and/or documents

The two cases of Paragon v Pender (2003 and 2005) also proved her claims were complete and utter nonsense
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/760.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/2834.html

[JimUk1]

They really are an interesting group of individuals aye?

I've been through a few of the Crawford videos on YouTube, baffling if you ask me.

Is it Tom genuinely believes because mortgages are approved/made ect from a central bank that a high street bank has no right or need to ask for the capital?

I can see he's not been helped by people who seem to have their own agenda against the state.

Shocking, why would you sink so low to drag your family through all this?

[Firthy2002]

Shocking, why would you sink so low to drag your family through all this?

I'd say it was more pushing him along than being dragged.
When I first came across this whole sorry saga I did feel sorry for his immediate family, until I got deeper into the rabbit hole and discovered they are enabling him to carry on this impossible cause and even defend his actions.

I wouldn't be surprised if more remote branches of the family tree have cut ties.

[JimUk1]

Shocking, why would you sink so low to drag your family through all this?

I wouldn't be surprised if more remote branches of the family tree have cut ties.

You could be correct.

If that was my father however I would hate to seem him in a paranoid delusional state like Tom clearly is.

Shocking, truly appalled. What drives a man to act like this?

Could it be a lack of understanding? Or a something for nothing attitude?

[FatGambit]

You're assuming there is an extended family.

[PeanutGallery]

I know of no lawyer who would advise losing a case to win a case on an appeal. Winning is best early, and nothing is served dragging things out, unless you are being paid by the hour in beer for you common law legal advice.

I suppose, if the court you are in doesn't have the authority to issue the ruling you want, and there is reason to believe that the higher court can and will issue that ruling....

In which case shouldnt a competent advocate save everybody time and costs by applying to have the case heard in the higher court at first instance. Sometimes the courts will even do this for you.

Tom's plan is to lose so that the loss can be called a success because him losing obviously means all the courts are corrupt.

[Bones]

As we have over 770 posts and nearly 40 pages, give the recent court case and it appearing the upcoming judgement, is it worth closing this thread now and starting a new one, or waiting until the judgement has been released by something other than a crawfraud and then starting a new thread

[Hercule Parrot]

If that was my father however I would hate to seem him in a paranoid delusional state like Tom clearly is.

Shocking, truly appalled. What drives a man to act like this?

Could it be a lack of understanding? Or a something for nothing attitude?

I think it all starts with endowment policies. Some people didn't pay heed to the warnings that there would be a shortfall, others like Mr & Mrs C didn't bother to maintain the policy at all. They thought that some windfall would come along, or endowment rates would improve. A lot of those mortgages are now reaching term, and a lot of borrowers are facing difficult decisions.

Normal people would sell and downsize, or negotiate an extended period to pay the remaining capital. TC isn't very bright, and has the something for nothing attitude, so he decided they would keep the house without paying back the capital. Which of course the lender wouldn't agree to. TC still refused to negotiate a settlement of his debt, and sought refuge in delusional crackpot theories which led to total disaster - the loss of the entire capital value of the home, and a lot more owed for legal costs etc.

Everything that follows is just TC blustering and lying to rationalise his own stupid greed. He knows the truth of what he's done, the whole family know in their hearts that he squandered £150,000 on a futile and unwinnable temper tantrum. But for all of them it is psychologically easier to blame the evil bankers.

[ArthurWankspittle]

As we have over 770 posts and nearly 40 pages, give the recent court case and it appearing the upcoming judgement, is it worth closing this thread now and starting a new one, or waiting until the judgement has been released by something other than a crawfraud and then starting a new thread

I'll review it after the court hearing. I suspect the result of the hearing will close this chapter until a new one is opened by the actions of a Crawford or associate.

[Pox]

I think it all starts with endowment policies. Some people didn't pay heed to the warnings.They thought that some windfall would come along.
.

Perhaps he/they thought that Sue's mother would have died sooner than she did and Sue's inheritance would have paid the capital?
A risky strategy though, me thinks.

[Normal Wisdom]

If that was my father however I would hate to seem him in a paranoid delusional state like Tom clearly is.

Shocking, truly appalled. What drives a man to act like this?

Could it be a lack of understanding? Or a something for nothing attitude?

I think it all starts with endowment policies. Some people didn't pay heed to the warnings that there would be a shortfall, others like Mr & Mrs C didn't bother to maintain the policy at all. They thought that some windfall would come along, or endowment rates would improve. A lot of those mortgages are now reaching term, and a lot of borrowers are facing difficult decisions....

Tom is a disastrous combination of stupidity, pig-headedness and temper. I've always been of the opinion that he and Sue never understood the purpose of the endowment policy. At one time Tom talked about how they discovered the mortgage problem when Mrs C (who seemed to do all the talking with B&B) contacted the bank to discuss "life insurance". I believe that they thought the endowment policy was simply a nice to have but not in any way essential additional life insurance policy that they could easily do without when money got tight.

Thus when told by B&B that they "would never repay their mortgage" (because the endowment policy had been surrendered) Tom, being Tom, jumped to the conclusion that the bank had pulled some horrible trick on them. From then on every attempt by the bank to help resolve the issue; by changing the mortgage to a repayment type, in Tom's stubborn and obtuse mind simply confirmed that they were the victims of some sort of ruse.

If there was a point at which he realised the truth of the matter, my guess is that it wasn't until quite a few years later. For many years he ploughed the twin furrows that the bank had switched mortgages without their knowledge and had lost the endowment policy. He only moved on from these idiocies when the other even more stupid, freeman explanations appeared. Even now they resurface from time to time, usually when other theories have failed and I'm willing to bet that if we were able to ask him he would still tell you that the bank switched the mortgage and lost the endowment. Perhaps he still doesn't understand what really happened.

[Bungle]

It's always good to hear fairy stories about the warrant. This is from yesterday on F/B:


Jay Brad Bradley checked into Skelmersdale Police Station

Let's see if they do anything about the clown that assaulted me in the Magistrates Court at Nottingham
Funny thing is if it was me that did anything to him Nottingham Police would of had me but me I have to make an appointment and make a statement strange world we live in!


Barry Evans:

Come on Jay sort out your friends list - You have that Amanda woman that said she would post the warrant over a year ago and never did - what is that woman hiding ???


Jay Brad Bradley

Barry Evans, they are hiding nothing they are holding the ace cards close to them do u not think if they could of proved ownership of the house they would of found us guilty of the criminal damage and aggravated trespass so ask yourself this what are the crown hiding to drop the rooftop 6 + 1 quicker than a hot cake


Barry Evans

lol seriously Jaybo, you don't believe that do you ? The warrant was produced at your own trial



Barry Evans

It was one of the rooftop 6 that released a copy of the warrant to the public after all....


Jay Brad Bradley

Yes an out of date warrant and when they asked to produce the in date one was when the prosecutor lost his balls


Barry Evans

If there is no warrant why is Tom not back in his house then ? Come on, it has been over a year, not even you can believe that old tosh.. As for Ashley, I think he has popped down to Essex for some mixed martial arts lessons with Chrisy Morris but could be wrong

[AndyPandy]

Tom is a disastrous combination of stupidity, pig-headedness and temper. I've always been of the opinion that he and Sue never understood the purpose of the endowment policy. At one time Tom talked about how they discovered the mortgage problem when Mrs C (who seemed to do all the talking with B&B) contacted the bank to discuss "life insurance". I believe that they thought the endowment policy was simply a nice to have but not in any way essential additional life insurance policy that they could easily do without when money got tight.

Thus when told by B&B that they "would never repay their mortgage" (because the endowment policy had been surrendered) Tom, being Tom, jumped to the conclusion that the bank had pulled some horrible trick on them. From then on every attempt by the bank to help resolve the issue; by changing the mortgage to a repayment type, in Tom's stubborn and obtuse mind simply confirmed that they were the victims of some sort of ruse.

If there was a point at which he realised the truth of the matter, my guess is that it wasn't until quite a few years later. For many years he ploughed the twin furrows that the bank had switched mortgages without their knowledge and had lost the endowment policy. He only moved on from these idiocies when the other even more stupid, freeman explanations appeared. Even now they resurface from time to time, usually when other theories have failed and I'm willing to bet that if we were able to ask him he would still tell you that the bank switched the mortgage and lost the endowment. Perhaps he still doesn't understand what really happened.

Spot on, but I think they only realised this AFTER DJ Godsmark had put it all down in black & white for them and at that point to have to admit to their own sheer stupidity / ignorance of what an endowment mortgage actually was has led them down the clutching at straws of 'we paid the mortgage 3 times over' - (no that was the interest element) and 'no valid warrant'.

How can you possibly admit to soooooooo many people (including yourself) that it was your own naive ignorance of what you'd signed up to that caused you to lose the home you'd invested in (and any equity accrued), and in actual fact the bank were never at fault.

Tom Crawford is simply not a strong enough person to hold his hand up and admit he was in wrong, that's why he's GOT to continue down this sorry path.

[Firthy2002]

Jay Brad Bradley checked into Skelmersdale Police Station

Let's see if they do anything about the clown that assaulted me in the Magistrates Court at Nottingham
Funny thing is if it was me that did anything to him Nottingham Police would of had me but me I have to make an appointment and make a statement strange world we live in!

Why didn't he pop round to the cop shop next to the courthouse when it happened?
Methinks he is trying to drop someone in it for no reason.