Cautionary Tale of Fuckwittery By Analogous Reasoning


Please consider this brief, cautionary tale of contemporary fuckwittery, by analogous reasoning.

A fake credit card company sells a fraudulent claim to a third party, who then aggressively pursues the alleged debtor with threats of bailiffs turning up at their home to seize their possessions if they don’t pay up without delay.

The alleged debtor then writes to the third party asking them to provide three things:

1. Material evidence that they have any form of bilateral contract with the third party, signed in blue ink;

2. Material evidence that the third party lent them any money; and

3. Material evidence that any verifiable debt had not been discharged when they acquired it from the fake credit card company in a securitisation pool.

The third party responds with a three page letter arguing that they have a perfectly valid and legally enforceable claim, enclosing a photocopy of the purported Consumer Credit Agreement [CCA] from the fake credit card company.

The third party then waives its purported right to claim the alleged debt by “closing the account” that the alleged debtor never opened with them in the first place, which the third party then claims they are doing “as a gesture of good will”.

Who in their right mind would accept such an immense crock of duplicitousness, as anything other than a thinly-veiled attempt to hide the irefutible fact that the third party is an accessory to the fraud committed by the fake credit card company?


By almost identical reasoning…

A void mortgage company employs some criminal solicitors to attempt to steal a working family’s home of 25 years, by and through the enforcement of a void possession order obtained by their fraudulent actions in the county court.

After a lengthy legal dispute of the alleged debt, during which time the solicitors claim under a statement of truth that a certain amount is due and outstanding to their client, a judge declares that the amount claimed cannot be verified by the claimant’s evidence, which effectively sustains the family’s allegations of fraud by the void mortgage company; rendering the solicitors liable for a wasted costs order and lying under oath.

Despite these facts, the same judge refuses to grant the family’s appeal of the void possession order, since the false amount claimed automatically vitiates the original judgment, so there is nothing to appeal. The willfully myopic judge, whose wages are paid by the owners of the void mortgage company, then lifts a stay of the void possession order, which is, in any event, rendered a nullity at law by the fraud of the void mortgage company and its legal representatives.

The solicitors then waive their right to claim £30,000 in costs from the family, without any realistic explanation, knowing that those costs would normally be taken off the top of the proposed sale of the family’s property, as a matter of standard practice.

Had the solicitors been instructed to file a claim for costs by the void mortgage company, they would have knowingly committed perjury by claiming costs to a clearly fraudulent claim, which they have no sustainable excuse for not realising upon their inspection of the evidence, prior to it being issued.

This is self-evident upon reaching a clear understanding of the implications of the judge acknowledging that the allegation of fraud against the void mortgage company had effectively been upheld, since a false amount was alleged to be due and outstanding; but the trial of that allegation could only be dealt with in the event that the family issues a fresh claim to impeach the possession order, on the ground that frauds have been perpetrated against the court by the void mortgage company.

Who in their right mind would see the waiving of £30,000 in legal expenses as a sign that the void possession order was about to be enforced by the void mortgage company, which has effectively accepted liability for its own costs by waiving the right to claim them from the defendant, upon the refusal of permission to appeal?


Many of you will have already gleaned that the first scenario is exactly what happens every time companies like Lowell Financial buy an account from companies like Capital One; and that the second scenario is a first-hand account of what has transpired in Tom Crawford’s case against the Bradford & Bingley, in which I have acted as Tom’s Mackenzie Friend.

Therefore, in the light of the savage attacks against Tom and his family, let me put this in the most explicit language possible:

Every individual currently causing confusion, paranoia and division over Tom’s case is either a complete fuckwit, an agent of the banksters or both. I will not be poisoning myself at the well of their verbal diarrhea, nor will I be engaging in any kind of public spat with them, no matter what defamatory comments they make; on the basis that they will all soon be hoisted on their own disgusting petards.

Enough said.

Posted in Banking Crimes and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .