Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Bungle]

The thread has definitely been edited, on his very first post on GOODF he admits he owes the money and even mentions the amount involved. That is one of the posts that has gone but being Tom he has left other incriminating posts alone. I am sure someone here will have a copy of said post.

As an aside makes me laugh when they edit or heavily mod posts over on Goodf. I remember on one occasion someone having a totally one sided conversation with himself as all the replies were removed.

There does appear to have been some early editing by Tom. I would suspect that copies can be found on the very early Tom Crawford thread on here. I have a spare 15 minutes. I'll have a look.

[getoutofdebtfools]

He joined GOODY on 23rd April 2013 and obviously made some posts in the first few days. I say this because the following advice was given to him 4 days later by Mareo.

mareo » Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:51 pm

Tom, hello and welcome to GOODF,

you have certainly been through some stuff, you need to read up on the entire mortgage section,, still takes about an afternoon to do.

you will discover that yes they have been negligent in transferring your mortgage from endowment to interest only, however they are absolved by way of your giving them POA,. Power of Attorney to act on your behalf, this POA is conveniently hidden in the unilateral (one signature, one agreement) 'contract' conditions.

This POA needs to be revoked immediately, please read up as quick as you can, steep learning curve ahead for you. they will are 'acting' on your behalf and interest when they reposes under said POA, daft and back to front i know, but this is the information we have uncovered over the last few months.

Have a read through the threads, learn stuff you are unfamiliar with, then you will be in the best position to act, form an attack (and not a defense) of the situation.

Ask anything that you are unsure of after reading, so we all may be in a better position to assist.

just some thoughts, but did they inform you of the change?
did they seek your permission?
was your payments altered to reflect this new interest only mortgage?
how did you discover your change in mortgage?
when did you discover this change?
how long was the intermediate time between change and notice?
did you ever refuse to accept this new mortgage offer?

their claim to 'losing vital documentation' could be a bonus, they lost their paperwork, so could have lost your rejection at the time

Get reading kiddo and get asking questions that we may assist you with in the direction you wish to persure.

You will be empowered through conducting your own learning curve, do not be put of, i failed English at school however this site and the marvelous members helped me to learn that i what i have learned and compels me to learn all that i do not know.

If it was a hard task to do then we would not be here, none of us,..learning is fun especially when you can use it to fight against the corruption of others, the institutions they work for and the fraud perpetrated against us all.

no silver bullets as such, more like a nuke

Read up on Promissory notes, the Bills of Exchange act 1882 to better understand the use of same and promissory notes, all of which you will find within this site here at GOODF.

there is an event coming up on the 11th of May in Nottingham, your part of the world, pop along and meet other like minded individuals to exchange stories, experiences and question the folks you meet up there

It would seem that there had been some editing because Tom's posts from the 23rd April 2013 to 27th April 2013 have gone missing.

Wow. So really this whole sorry saga is Mareo's fault!

[letissier14]

I have a copy of his very first post on goodf.

I will post it up over the weekend

[rumpelstilzchen]

mareo wrote:

they have been negligent in transferring your mortgage from endowment to interest only

Oh dear.

[littleFred]

Are we on an infinite loop? Why are we revisiting what we discussed more than two years ago? Do we have anything new to say about it?

[Skeleton]

Are we on an infinite loop? Why are we revisiting what we discussed more than two years ago? Do we have anything new to say about it?

Was thinking the same myself. I can only surmise that some people are playing catch up, it is a long meandering thread so it is info that some may only have just found out about.

[AndyPandy]

mareo wrote:

they have been negligent in transferring your mortgage from endowment to interest only

Oh dear.

Was that why Mareo legged it from GOODF, I recall some fallout from Tom's case last year but wasn't clear exactly what happened ?

[Bungle]

mareo wrote:

they have been negligent in transferring your mortgage from endowment to interest only

Oh dear.

Was that why Mareo legged it from GOODF, I recall some fallout from Tom's case last year but wasn't clear exactly what happened ?

He has not only legged it. You cannot search for any of his posts either???

[Bungle]

Are we on an infinite loop? Why are we revisiting what we discussed more than two years ago? Do we have anything new to say about it?

Was thinking the same myself. I can only surmise that some people are playing catch up, it is a long meandering thread so it is info that some may only have just found out about.

With Tom today promoting the Rule of Law meeting on November 19th to sell to gullible fools, this daft idea of a Winchester Declaration (to restore the Rule of Law to disperse the gathering storm of tyranny), it is interesting to see how he has become firmly embedded into the Freeman woo woo since first posting on GOOFY in 2013 and being snared (sorry...I should have said...'being taken under the wings') by Haining.

Perhaps the answer is simply that he fell in with the wrong crowd..... who am I fooling.

[daveBeeston]

mareo wrote:

Oh dear.

Was that why Mareo legged it from GOODF, I recall some fallout from Tom's case last year but wasn't clear exactly what happened ?

He has not only legged it. You cannot search for any of his posts either???

You can search for his posts and where he is mentioned on Goodf through Google,

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei= ... rg&start=0

Or his posts related to Tom or mentioning Tom,

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei= ... btfree.org

[letissier14]

If I remember correctly at the time, Mareo replied only on what had Tom had told him were the facts. Mareo soon realised Tom wasn't telling all the facts, which as far as I'm aware was the reason Mareo leaving goodf.

[Bones]

If I remember correctly at the time, Mareo replied only on what had Tom had told him were the facts. Mareo soon realised Tom wasn't telling all the facts, which as far as I'm aware was the reason Mareo leaving goodf.

To be fair to Mareo, Tom was less than honest (and continues to lie) about what happened in the past in regards to his mortgage... Tom is the guy that states one thing in public and then during court cases tells a different story - such as no changes being made to his mortgage etc.

As for Mareo leaving, as I understand there were other reaons aswell, Tom was just one of them. I think since leaving GOODF, his eyes have been opened and I for one, wish him well

[notorial dissent]

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

I do think there is a point to the above, just not necessarily the one popping up at the moment. I think, in the interests of completeness and making this all easier to follow,

• 1) the information/posting from the very early Tom post at GGODF and before he eventually started to edit and revise the "truth"
  
  2) the eventual court result where Godsmark hands him his head and he says thank you very much, since I know someone has the complete file
  
  3) his appeal attempt and epic fail
  
  4) his elevation to vex lit status
  
  5) any subsequent court losses

that should be posted in one file in one place for easy reference. What isn't needed or wanted is a continuing back and forth of the same material so that the narrative ultimately gets lost and muddied in a forest of unnecessary words. This posting will be for documents and source material ONLY. Otherwise we are reduced to trying to wade back through one or more threads of 60+ pages trying to find something that should be simply in one place.

I would offer to do it, but I don't have access to the original documents or screen shots and I would really prefer that we had as original first generation a copy as possible, and when you post it, use the damn quote function and identify where, and if necessary when it came from. The when in all this can be just as important as the what. That is called documentation, and that is the prime reason we are supposed to be here, SO LET'S DOCUMENT.

If you have problems with editing or posting, I will be more than happy to help and correct as I can, but we need good info to start with, or there is no point.

To that end I will start a new thread; Tom Crawford documents and documentation.

Thank you all in advance. ND

[wanglepin]

RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW
by tommc » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:23 am
Rule of Law meeting on November 19th to sell to gullible fools, this daft idea of a Winchester Declaration

Is this Roger Hayes' BCG or something else?

This just has to be another one of those silly "initiative meeting/conferences" with a silly importent sounding soundbite title dreamed up by that jumped up, status seeking, self important twat Mr Roger Hayes. He loves a good shite soundbite does our "legal fiction Roger of the family Hayes".
We have heard it all before and none of them have ever come to anything ... at all.
Some earlier titles dreamed over the years from Hayes (please add any I may I have left out):
Lawful Bank.Fail
Committee of One Hundred.Fail
Letter to Cameron Conference.Fail
Magna Carta Initiative.Fail.
And the most recent
The Class Action.Fail Not a single one of these events have come to anything.
I attended one of these "conferences" some years ago hoping to challenge Hayes on claims he made concerning the C`estui Que Vie Act 1666.
I was asked to - "keep my questions to the day's agenda or leave" -, which was at the time Hayes` fraudulent bullshit bank.

http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/

[Bungle]

Bad news day for Tom !!!

An architect and engineering firm’s application to claim a dispute was invalid because the wrong court fees had been paid and the limitation period had expired has ‘no prospect of success’, the High Court has ruled.

Throwing out the case, Mr Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith (pictured) rejected the claims as misconceived and having ‘no real prospect of success’.

The case, Dixon v Radley House Partnership and Mr Christopher Reading and Others, dates back to 2007 when claimants James and Jenni Dixon employed architecture firm Radley House Partnership and electrical engineering company Chris Reading & Associates to refurbish their house in Hampshire.

However, the works did not run smoothly and the Dixons claimed the refurbishment was inadequate.
CRA’s appointment ended in June 2009 and RHP’s appointment ended in April 2010.

The Dixons then filed a claim against the companies, against RHP in 2013 and CRA in 2014, alleging defects in the works, which they said caused them losses, including the cost of repairs.

But, in April 2016, RHP and CRA then applied to amend their defences on the basis that the claimants had failed to pay the appropriate court fees when issuing the proceedings and that the limitation period on the claim had expired.

RHP and CRA claimed that, under the Limitation Act 1980, an action for fraud or tort cannot be brought after six years from the date of the alleged wrongdoing.

The defendants argued that the proceedings had not been ‘brought’ for the purposes of the act and should be declared invalid.

They further claimed that the Dixons' Particulars of Claim, served after the original claim form, exceeded the £35,000 that was originally claimed in the first claim forms in 2013/14.

According to the court, the appropriate fee for a claim for a sum of money that exceeds £15,000 but does not exceed £50,000 is £395.

The defendants claimed that the Dixons should have paid £1,670, the fee for claims in excess of £50,000 instead of £395.
But Stuart-Smith’s judgment, handed down on Monday, said that ‘at all material times, the relevant orders have provided for different fees to be paid on issuing different types of claim’.

He added that, if the defendants were right, any and every claimant who has issued proceedings without paying the fee that may retrospectively be seen to be appropriate, has failed to stop time running under the Limitation Act.

The defendants also sought to rely on an earlier case Lewis v Ward Hadaway, in which solicitors deliberately underpaid court fees in abuse of process. But, as the defendants did not allege abuse of process the case was not applicable.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/high-co ... 95.article

[letissier14]

Apparently Tom is in court tomorrow at Notts Crown Court for a review of his last court appearance and is front of Godsmark QC

[rumpelstilzchen]

That should be fun

[PeanutGallery]

Apparently Tom is in court tomorrow at Notts Crown Court for a review of his last court appearance and is front of Godsmark QC

It'll be like Halloweens come early for Nigel.

[#six]

This is what the law pages reports

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearin ... -Court.php

Nottingham 5 A20160152
Tom Crawford
Details: - No Information To Display -
For Review - Case to be listed on 16-Dec-2016 - 14:21

[SteveUK]

And here's our dynamic duo preparing for action before the hearing. Good to see Colon has dressed for the occasion .