The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[Bones]

For me it boils down to one point - their refusal to accept a warrant unless it is a format that is acceptable too and meets the definition of a warrant of Guy Taylor and that legal master mind Ebert

Until then (which will never happen) we can look forward to many more months of entertainment from these idiots

[YiamCross]

Its quite possible that Sue forgot she cancelled the EP policy...

This path is quite well worn. A little search back in earlier threads will reveal the fact, as anyone with an interest only mortgage will know, the banks take quite a keen interest in how the principal is going to be reapaied. Even those who manage to remember to pay their endowment policies know the banks want to be sure there's going to be enough in the pot at maturity to cover it and if not what other plans are in place. The insurance companies do not just let a policy lapse without writing frequently and urgently to the policy holders. The banks tend to move interest only mortgages to a repayment basis if they become concerned about lapsed endowment policies. Oh, wait, they did try to do that, didn't they, but Tom and Sue made them put it back again.

Pretty sure the one thing that's not possible is that it just slipped Sue's mind to pay the EP and no one realized until the mortgage term came due.

[Bones]

From the Godsmark Judgement

Fourthly, the Crawfords were in discussion with Bradford & Bingley about the lack of an endowment policy in 1999.

Fifthly, in 1999 Bradford & Bingley offered to move the Crawfords to a repayment mortgage but the Crawfords refused. This is important because Mr Crawford’s case has been that Bradford & Bingley changed his mortgage to repayment without his agreement. Today the position has been clarified. It is clear that Bradford & Bingley offered to convert the mortgage to repayment and it is agreed that Mr Crawford refused this. However Bradford & Bingley did not unilaterally change the type of mortgage the Crawfords had. I observe that in many ways the refusal by Mr Crawford to take up a repayment mortgage has been the source of this problem.....

.......Bradford & Bingley have information from Phoenix Group (successors to Royal Life) indicating that their records show that endowment policy premium payments were received from the account of S A Crawford (Mrs Crawford) up to and including 25 June 1991. There is no record of any payments thereafter and the policy was surrendered on 22nd July 1992 with a surrender payment of £178.75. There is a credit to the Crawford’s mortgage account of £178.75 on 23rd July 1992.






In Tom's own hands the evidence of the funds from the endowment being credited to the mortgage account in 1992

[Chaos]

Ceylon wrote:

from the start of the case we asked to see the original warrant

7 days into a crown court trial and as soon as the judge said

"I WANT THE ORIGINAL HERE IN THE MORNING"

PERSECUTOR OFFERS NO EVIDENCE

I call bullshit on this. No one on the roof had any right to see the warrant. The warrant was none of their business. Someone who isn't named on a warrant cannot demand to see it. We know the warrant exists so I do not believe for one minute that the judge asked to see it.

nor was it the reason for the proceedings.

[Chaos]

Its quite possible that Sue forgot she cancelled the EP policy...

This path is quite well worn. A little search back in earlier threads will reveal the fact, as anyone with an interest only mortgage will know, the banks take quite a keen interest in how the principal is going to be reapaied. Even those who manage to remember to pay their endowment policies know the banks want to be sure there's going to be enough in the pot at maturity to cover it and if not what other plans are in place. The insurance companies do not just let a policy lapse without writing frequently and urgently to the policy holders. The banks tend to move interest only mortgages to a repayment basis if they become concerned about lapsed endowment policies. Oh, wait, they did try to do that, didn't they, but Tom and Sue made them put it back again.

Pretty sure the one thing that's not possible is that it just slipped Sue's mind to pay the EP and no one realized until the mortgage term came due.

I imagine there would have been quite a few phone calls also, daily, after the cfrauds ignored them a certain amount of time

[Bones]

Pretty sure the one thing that's not possible is that it just slipped Sue's mind to pay the EP and no one realized until the mortgage term came due.

From the judgement

Bradford & Bingley have also produced a document entitled a Customer Needs Analysis. It is apparently signed by Mrs Crawford on 29th January 1999. The document contains reference to the lack of arrangements to pay off the mortgage and that the mortgage is to be re-arranged onto a repayment basis to make sure the debt is gradually repaid.

[Bones]

As I am bored today I thought I would deal with Craig's claims:

We've never seen the warrant and the facts speak for themselves when you look at the inconsistencies/faults regarding the paperwork... Like (these are as accurate as possible):

In the video Craig made himself, on the day of the eviction Sue (Craig's Mum) confirms that the warrant is not signed or stamped.https://youtu.be/yEbWVkEsw9o?t=12m7s

Amanda (Craig's sister) has posted that they have been sent a copy of the warrant but she has declared it to be a unicorn.



Still waiting to see it

So whilst his own Mum and Sister have confirmed that they have seen the warrant - Craig still insists that they have never seen it. So is Craig calling his own Mum and Sister liars ?

Colon states in his video that a certified copy of the warrant was produced at the hearing https://youtu.be/RNa56OPi8cM?t=8m

The bank never paid a fee to the court. And no step can be taken by the court in the first place without them paying a fee! So it should never of been put in motion.

I do wonder, if Craig has ever bothered to read the Godsmark judgement for himself. I trust Craig is capable of thinking for himself

From the judgement

I do not agree. I would not expect a fee paid through the Online claims system to appear on Caseman. The PCOL system is largely automated and the claim form will not be generated unless fees criteria are met.

Furthermore there is no separate fee for a possession hearing. Once the claim is issued via PCOL there is no further possession hearing fee to record on Caseman.

Sanctions for non-payment of certain court fees is provided for in CPR 3.7. This provides for service of notices requiring payment of certain specified fees failing which an automatic strike out follows. No such notice was sent out in this case. That is because there was no fee due in respect of any step identified in CPR 3.7 (a) – (e).

Furthermore proceedings are not invalidated by failure to pay a fee. If that were so there would be no need to provide separately for strike out under CPR 3.7 – if the proceedings were invalidated for lack of a fee in the first place there would be nothing to strike out. For proceedings to be struck out for failure to pay a fee there must be a court order to that effect. There is none here.

They didn't show a warrant or identity themselves..Which is against the law

The apparent high Court bailiff didn't identity himself or produce the warrant.

Craig's Mum confirms in the video made and uploaded by Craig himself that she must have seen the warrant as she could confirm it was not signed of stamped.https://youtu.be/yEbWVkEsw9o?t=12m7s

Again, the video made by Craig, shows that an attempt was made to show Tom (Craig's Dad) the warrant but as his head was too far down the Freeman / Sovcit rabbit hole, he was not interested in looking at it.
https://youtu.be/yEbWVkEsw9o?t=15m11s

The Godsmark judgement was NOT a reissue of a warrant. It was to lift the stay on the warrant from 2012 which had expired already...

No Craig it wasn't to lift the stay on the warrant from 2012. The possession order is from 2012. A warrant (as proven by the Guy Taylor video) was issued in 2014, after Tom (Craig's Dad, stopped making payments)

From the judgement

Thus in September 2013 the Crawfords were still obliged to make monthly payments even though twenty-five years had expired. The decision to cease making those payments was disastrous. It immediately put the Crawfords in breach of the terms of the suspension of the possession order. It immediately gave Bradford & Bingley the right to enforce the possession order.

I deal with this aspect of the case here although it is not relevant to the appeal. This is an appeal against the making of the suspended possession order on 19th September 2012. What led to the lifting of that suspension is not relevant to the making of the original order. However I deal with this point to make it clear that it has not been overlooked and so that anyone reading this judgment can understand, as I have been keen to, how the Crawfords have ended up where they are...

....Having ceased making monthly mortgage payments, Mr and Mrs Crawford put themselves in breach of the terms of the suspension of the original possession order made on 19th September 2012. Bradford & Bingley sought to enforce the possession order by obtaining a warrant for possession.

During the second half of 2014 attempts to enforce the possession warrant were thwarted when a large number of protesters arrived on the dates set for execution of the warrants. This was covered in the local and national press.

In the face of a further warrant, Mr Crawford made an application to stay execution of that warrant which came before me as a matter of urgency on 2nd February 2015.

rubbish and nonsense

The rest of his points are just rubbish and nonsense

Craig denies things that he witnessed and posted on youtube himself

[Bones]

Just found this response to a FOI request

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... C.doc.html

[Burnaby49]

Every time this discussion appears to be in it's final death throes it somehow gets another shock from the defibrillator and jerks back into life for a while. It's amazing.

[Forsyth]

Every time this discussion appears to be in it's final death throes it somehow gets another shock from the defibrillator and jerks back into life for a while. It's amazing.

Yes, well, this is the UK. We're used to making a little go a long way and, when it's finally completely gone, carrying on talking about it for the next several centuries as though it was just yesterday. This is the nation that invented cricket, you know.

[PeanutGallery]

We also had a war that lasted for over a hundred years with France...some people still aren't over it.

[Burnaby49]

Every time this discussion appears to be in it's final death throes it somehow gets another shock from the defibrillator and jerks back into life for a while. It's amazing.

Yes, well, this is the UK. We're used to making a little go a long way and, when it's finally completely gone, carrying on talking about it for the next several centuries as though it was just yesterday. This is the nation that invented cricket, you know.

Tell me about it. On one of our UK trips there was a match shown in the pubs that was played for days, if not a week. Sure seemed like a week. As exciting as watching lunch at a retirement home.

[Joinder]

Would there ever be a transcript available for this? I know there's more chance of me being hit by a tram while sat on my toilet than that actually hapenning, but it would make entertaining reading.

Just ask me, I was there

So what was said about the warrant in the Crown Court hearing?

The judge asked to see it, it couldn't be produced, case dropped..

[ArthurWankspittle]

Just ask me, I was there

So what was said about the warrant in the Crown Court hearing?

The judge asked to see it, it couldn't be produced, case dropped..

Sorry there's no logic in that. There's no reason for it to be produced, the judge said earlier that the eviction process was not relevant to this court hearing. There's also no reason for it not to be produced as several people have copies including Tom Crawford. The case hinging on an irrelevant document is the sort of fantasy FOTL live their deluded lives for. I also don't recall that was how it was reported in the press. Surely "prosecution unable to produce document - case collapses" would be news, but it didn't happen like that, did it?

[AndyPandy]

Just ask me, I was there

So what was said about the warrant in the Crown Court hearing?

The judge asked to see it, it couldn't be produced, case dropped..

Doesn't really matter why the case was dropped, because at the end of the day whatever spin the Crawfords and their supports choose to put on this, they are no closer to regaining possession of the 3 Fearn Chase then they were a week ago before this case started.

[Joinder]

So what was said about the warrant in the Crown Court hearing?

The judge asked to see it, it couldn't be produced, case dropped..

Sorry there's no logic in that. There's no reason for it to be produced, the judge said earlier that the eviction process was not relevant to this court hearing. There's also no reason for it not to be produced as several people have copies including Tom Crawford. The case hinging on an irrelevant document is the sort of fantasy FOTL live their deluded lives for. I also don't recall that was how it was reported in the press. Surely "prosecution unable to produce document - case collapses" would be news, but it didn't happen like that, did it?

The CPS produced 6 days of evidence. The judge became increasingly exasperated at Ceylon and others wittering on about the warrant that he asked for it to be produced the next day in order to shut them up.
The CPS, amazingly then said that they had no evidence to offer and withdrew the prosecution, despite having sat thru 5 days of evidence in court. !
I'm still baffled at the way it turned out, of course The rooftop 6 now believe it all hinges around the warrant, I can see how they would see it that way.
Perhaps there was no valid warrant after all ?

[FatGambit]

So what was said about the warrant in the Crown Court hearing?

The judge asked to see it, it couldn't be produced, case dropped..

Sorry there's no logic in that. There's no reason for it to be produced, the judge said earlier that the eviction process was not relevant to this court hearing. There's also no reason for it not to be produced as several people have copies including Tom Crawford. The case hinging on an irrelevant document is the sort of fantasy FOTL live their deluded lives for. I also don't recall that was how it was reported in the press. Surely "prosecution unable to produce document - case collapses" would be news, but it didn't happen like that, did it?

Just to plays devils advocate here but if their defence relied on the fact that Tom gave them permission to be on the property, then it would be up to the prosecution to disprove that defence, by, for instance, producing the Warrant relating to the repossession, which would establish Tom had been evicted and no longer had legal claim to the property.

[Bones]

The judge asked to see it, it couldn't be produced, case dropped..

Not even remotely accurate or true - thought you was there Joinder

The judge made it clear throughout the hearing he was not happy about giving these idiots "a platform".

As confirmed by Colon, a certified copy of the warrant was produced during the hearing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNa56OP ... tu.be&t=8m

Being a copy of the warrant that was shown to Sue on the day of the eviction, that an attempt was made to show Tom on the day of the eviction and was later sent to the Crawfords as confirmed by Amanda

The problem was that the testimony of the prosecution witness's was different to their witness statements

[wanglepin]

As confirmed by Colon, a certified copy of the warrant was produced during the hearing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNa56OP ... tu.be&t=8m

For the personal attention of the dunces over in goofsville and Mark - what a dunce I am - Haining in particular.
Certified
Officially recognized as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards. And attested to or confirmed in a formal statement.

[Bones]

This might also clarify the "signature" arguments

Page 1





Page 2