I am the bearer of 1215 words, comprising a logical synthesis of information regarding extraordinary events in turbulent times, the consequences of which will prove devastating to the purveyors of institutionalised mortgage fraud and the rigged courts system which so blatantly protects it.
On the morning of Easter Monday 2016, I was privileged to be the 8th viewer of the video below, which was posted by Tom Crawford on YouTube, shortly before he retook possession of his family home of 26 years, which was stolen by criminal bailiffs last summer, resulting from the decision of the senior judge at Nottingham County Court, HHJ Godsmark, who dismissed Tom’s appeal of a plainly void possession order and a non-existent warrant of eviction, upon which the legality of the ‘eviction’ was and remains entirely dependent. Please watch the video before you continue to read this commentary.
As all except Fanny Cramping and his ilk of vicious, embittered, sad little fuckwits will know in their hearts after watching the video, there have rarely been such courageous, determined and emotive stands taken by any individual on these shores to save their family home, in the face of such abject dishonesty, injustice and violence; but what few people will even dare to imagine is that taking such a course of action was destined to place the crown in a tight corner, from which the only viable escape route is to acquiesce to the indomitable force of the truth.
If the CPS prosecute Tom, they have to prove that the Crawfords home was lawfully taken, which they have already failed to do before a district judge in Leicester crown court, where the CPS was forced to drop their allegations that Tom assaulted a police officer in resisting his arrest during the eviction, after failing to produce a copy of the purported warrant under which the police and the bailiffs were granted lawful authority to enforce Nottingham county court’s order for possession over the property.
The issue is therefore considered Res Judicata – a point that has already been decided at law in a criminal court, where the burden of proof is much higher than it is in the civil domain of the county court, where a litigant only has to demonstrate that a claim or defence is probably a valid one. as opposed to proven beyond reasonable doubt.
However, if the CPS don’t prosecute him and the likely charges of trespass, breaking and entering and criminal damage are dropped for the lack of evidence, the crown will be implicitly acknowledging that Tom wasn’t trespassing; because in the absence of a legally valid and enforceable warrant, the eviction was a criminal operation and the Crawfords must therefore be considered the rightful owners of the property, just as they have persistently argued since the beginning of their dispute with Bradford & Bingley, a publicly bailed out, HM Treasury-owned bank; whilst any entry that has been made to the contrary effect in the Charges Register must be canceled as fraudulent by the Land Registry.
At the cost of repeating myself…
Check Mate to the Crawfords.
As followers of my work already know, my Dad and the other trustee of our family’s private property trust recently had their third high court claim against Bank of Scotland and its LPA Receivers dismissed by a district judge before the claim had even been properly issued by the court; on the erroneous ground the claim is seeking to re-open the appeal of the decision of HHJ Behrens, given in December 2013, when he dismissed the trustees’ second high court claim, made in July 2013, alleging that the defendants committed fraud upon the court in procuring judgment in the trustees’ first high court claim, in which it was alleged that the bank committed fraud by demanding mortgage money that wasn’t due and by illegally appointing receivers to manage the trust’s properties, who subsequently committed fraud by receiving substantial income and making false entries in the Charges Register in the names of the trustees, without having been validly appointed by deed, under a legally enforceable Power of Attorney.
The trustees wasted no time in challenging the order of the district judge by applying to have it set aside on the grounds that he did not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter and in any event the trustees have paid to have it decided by a high court judge, not a county court judge with administrative powers only. This resulted in an extraordinary request from the high court’s executive administrator, who asked the trustees to provide another district judge with directions as to how the they would like the court to proceed in dealing with their application to have the order set aside, following its inspection by an unnamed high court judge at Leeds combined courts.
On Thursday the 31st of March 2016, the trustees went into the high court at Newcastle to see the executive administrator and presented him with the following directions, for the immediate attention of the presiding district judge, sitting in the district registry, under the authority of the unnamed high court judge:
1. The order dismissing the claim form must be set aside on the grounds stated in the trustees’ application, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction to do so.
2. The court must seal and issue the claim without further delay.
3. The claimant must then file and serve Particulars of Claim upon the parties concerned within 28 days of the claim being properly issued and sealed by the court.
4. No order for costs shall be made.
5. The District Judge must clearly indicate upon the order the authority under which he is authorised to administer an application to the High Court.
The judge has been asked to do all of this within 7 days and without a hearing. The court’s executive administrator agreed that each point was sensible and he didn’t foresee any potential obstacles to the directions being carried out by the presiding district judge, whose identity also currently remains unknown to the trustees.
However, the judge has no choice except doing exactly what the trustees have directed, which will catalyse an unstoppable chain reaction that will inevitably result in Behrens’ judgment being overturned, along with every void order that preceded it, all the way back to the decision of HHJ Walton on the 22nd of October 2010, when he dismissed the first claim as… yes, your guessed it – “totally without merit”.
This is set to coincide with thirteen void mortgages being canceled as fraudulent by the Land Registry and the defendants being summonsed to a Magistrates Court to defend allegations that they have knowingly made false representations for financial gain, in multiple breaches of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, upon which I will elaborate in due course.
Which leads me to this metaphorical observation regarding the current stage of the war of attrition we have been waging since February 19th 2010:
Goliath has been surrounded by an insurmountable force, bombarding him with potentially fatal blows from every direction; and his legs are now beginning to buckle under the sheer relentlessness of extraordinary attacks by indomitable mortal adversaries, who will never concede defeat to the illegitimate might of the tyrannical giant’s fiefdom; which will quickly crumble when Goliath’s formerly obedient slaves realise for themselves that consenting to democratic government was not a conduit for mutual protection, but tyrannical domination.