This is especially relevant in a land where the ever-growing state-dependent underclass is given the choice [by an unaccountable overclass] between slaving for less money than they need to exist and getting paid £500 a week as a full-time internet shill for the not so secret services, who advertised the fact that such positions were available on Google Ads between 2008 and 2009, stressing that people on benefits should not be discouraged from applying. Is it just a coincidence that most British-based “activists” claim to have started their research around that time or not long after? Answers, please, on a rhetorical postcard.
It is impossible to deduce another realistic explanation, as to why and how there have been such blatantly organised, immediate and coordinated attacks against Tom Crawford, his family [and those who assisted] in their front-line battle to stop an HM Treasury owned bank from stealing their home of 25 years; other than, from the BBC to Facebook, there has been a concerted effort to discredit the irrefutable fact that the bank’s directors and its legal representatives have failed to verify the amount claimed to be due and outstanding – fraud upon the court by another name, which was one of the main points submitted in the appeal of the possession order and the undisclosed warrant, both of which were founded upon that plainly false claim by the state-owned Bradford & Bingley.
On the simple basis that HM Treasury is financially liable for the damages caused by the institutionalised frauds of its own bank, it is perfectly reasonable to assume, given recent events, that HM Secret Services have been be employed by HM Government to convince the public, via the Rothschild-controlled mainstream and agent provocateur dominated social media, that it is the Crawfords who are liable for the losses of the Bradford & Bingley, and not the other way round.
Fake identities created on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have been used to hurl entirely unjustified and often vicious abuse at those who have first-hand knowledge of the facts of the case and what actually transpired during the hearing of the Crawfords’ application for permission to appeal. I am yet to discover that anybody with any credible knowledge of the general application of civil procedures in the courts does not agree about the effects of HHJ Godsmark’s judgment, whether it is widely understood or not. In addition, everybody I have spoken to agrees that there are no exceptions to the rule that the loser of any case pays their own and the other parties legal costs, which are very rarely [if ever] waived by the successful litigant.
Whilst Tom did not claim any legal costs from the Bradford & Bingley because the judge refused his application to appeal the latter’s claim, which was, in any event, vitiated, upon it being agreed by judge that the bank had failed to verify the amount it claimed was due and outstanding; the fully nationalised bank has nevertheless “waived” its purported right to claim more than £30,000 in costs, which it would never have done had the judge accepted the bank’s computer-generated statements as sufficient evidence of the alleged debt; in the absence of which, the claim form and particulars of claim are rendered fraudulent. Furthermore, the solicitors who signed statements of truth attesting to the purported validity of the bogus claim would appear to have committed perjury in so doing, hence the bank’s directors’ waived their purported right to apply for costs, necessarily requiring that the Bradford & Bingley foots the bill, rather than the Crawfords.
The only possibility of recouping those legal costs is the enforcement of an imaginary warrant for the eviction of Tom and his unfailingly resilient family, which was not submitted into evidence by the bank at the permission hearing, despite multiple requests for it by the very family who were being threatened with violent eviction by criminal bailiffs. The logical reason that, even in the event it exists, the bank will not seek to enforce it, is because the false amount claimed must necessarily be written on the warrant, which would render the directors of the Bradford & Bingley and their solicitors, both criminally and civilly liable, for knowingly and dishonestly seeking financial gain, in the event county court bailiffs take possession of a property which they have no legal, equitable or moral right to take.
At the present moment, those implicated individuals might plausibly avoid financial ruin and custodial sentences by claiming that they have merely been grossly incompetent and/or professionally negligent, as is the most common cry of gutless parasites when they are caught in various states of skullduggery. In this particular case, there is not a life-long pragmatist upon the Earth who would not clearly see that the judge, his paymasters and the owners of the nationalised bank, are fully engaged in a major damage limitation exercise, since the last thing they all need right now is a sudden rush of void mortgagors demanding proof that the Bradford & Bingley [and all the other nationalised banks] lent them any money; or that thousands of judges have not issued hundreds of thousands of void possession orders, which were entirely founded upon computer-generated statements and the false testimony of the mortgagees’ legal representatives.
It is, therefore, somewhat appropriate that I coincidentally feel compelled to point out to all those foolish enough to trust others to do their research for them, that the effects of the judgment would have been no different if the judge had made the following orders:
1. Permission to appeal out of time is granted, but the appeal cannot succeed on the ground that Bradford & Bingley cannot verify that the amount claimed is due and outstanding. In effect, there is no valid judgment to appeal as a result of this fatal irregularity.
2. Upon the evidence before the court, there also appears to be a cause of action for Tom and Sue Crawford to issue a fresh claim to impeach the possession order and warrant appealed, on the ground that the bank has relied upon dishonest witness statements relating to the amount allegedly owned by the Crawfords. It moreover appears, given the significant public interest in this case, that the most just and expedient way to deal with these issues is within the scope of this decision, which is within the boundaries of the inherent jurisdiction of the court to deal with its own judgments and orders, rather than within the scope of the appellants’ application for permission to appeal.
3. The evidential failure of the bank to verify the amount claimed on the claim form and in the particulars of claim, prevented this court from carrying out its duty to give the alleged debtor ample opportunity to repay a certain sum, which needed to be proven to be due and outstanding. Such a failure must be considered a clog on the equity of redemption, which is generally a fatal impediment in any possession claim by a mortgagee.
4. It is also well established that no court will allow any party to keep a benefit that appears to have been obtained by fraudulent means. It would therefore be unjust to allow the claimant to retain the benefit of the order for possession.
In a further order of the court’s own motion, the claim and the particulars of claim are struck out, on the basis that the fraudulent claim of the claimant automatically vitiates their applications, which must be treated as if they had never been issued.
The possession order is therefore set aside as void, as are any and all orders and/or warrants which arose out of it.
There will be no order for costs, since there is no application for such before the court.
Who benefits from the muddying of the waters?
Anybody who has read dozens of orders relating to mortgaged property cannot possibly have failed to notice that the vast majority of the time judges have routinely accepted unattributed, unsigned and unverified, computer-generated bank statements as sufficient evidence that a claim for possession is a valid one. It naturally follows that only those who do not want 11.2 million void mortgagors to know that HHJ Godsmark QC implicitly ruled that the standard practice of the banks relying on their own computer-generated statements is simply unacceptable, on the basis that people are the masters of their electronic devices, not the other way round.
In other words, since the bank’s computer is incapable of signing a sworn witness statement, its purported testimony is inadmissible. However, the contradictory statements in Godsmark’s judgment have the hallmarks of seemingly convenient circumstantial obfuscation, in what seems to be an obvious effort to limit the damage caused by the incendiary ramifications of the Crawfords sustaining the main point in the entire proceedings: the Bradford & Bingley could not prove that the amount claimed was due and outstanding.
Had this judgment been handed down in the High Court, instead of on appeal at Nottingham County Court, this point would have established a binding legal precedent upon which every other void mortgagor could rely. As things stand, a victory dressed in the clothes of defeat is still a victory, no matter what those who have sold their souls for two grand a month would have you believe. Happily, notwithstanding their futile attempts to reverse the tide which turned last summer, this perfectly valid interpretation of the judgment can be used as a ‘persuasive precedent’ in ongoing mortgage proceedings in the county court, by any void mortgagor who is fully conversant with its eminent applicability. For those of us with the eyes to see and the ears to hear, that is certainly a victory worth celebrating in such a tyrannical, corporatist, police state.