The Crawford Affair: A Rigged Game.
One consequence of rigging the game, whether it be via a casino table, the fixing of elections or by a ‘Court’ system that is designed to deny justice, is that, eventually, the swindle will be revealed and understood by so many it will be impossible to sustain.
If we take just two examples from history, the years 1381 and 1812, we see that the people of the British Isles did what they usually do when they are faced with the tyranny of fake rulers who falsely deem they have the right to tax, extort and commit acts of genocide against them. (And, who can sincerely argue that such tyranny is being perpetrated right now?). They rose up.
The People’s Revolution of 1381 was a mass cross-societal rising of British men and women against their illegitimate ‘overlords’. The image of the rural man stood there in his smock, resolute with pitchfork in hand is a powerful motif, and it was one that was counteracted by the insertion of the red dagger, the alleged murder weapon used against the man of the people, Wat Tyler, into the coat of arms of the ‘City of London’.
Spinning away from the Luddites and into the present, it occurred to RM that the camera is the modern day equivalent of the pitchfork. Symbols are powerful in so far as they can show in an instant exactly that which they represent. For example, Tom Crawford’s straw hat has taken on an iconic meaning in the same way the Warner Brothers’ heavily merchandised ‘V for Vendetta’ Guy Fawkes mask has.
On May Day, 2015, when hundreds of people, from all manner of places and backgrounds across these islands, converged on Nottingham and, in particular, the County Court where the hearing of Tom Crawford’s out-of-time appeal of a fraudulent possession order against his home was taking place, they were simply engaging in the centuries’ old battle in the same way their ancestors did.
Only this time, the choice of weapon is a camera, not a pitchfork.
Given that the Luddite movement began in Nottingham before spreading North to the towns of East Lancashire and across to the valleys around Huddersfield in the West Riding, and that the city of Nottingham itself has proud history of rebellion, there was a palpable sense of appropriateness about the entire day. It was a day that unfurled itself in a series of events that created an atmosphere that was at once resolute, determined and knowledgeable.
In this sense, it was the right time and place and, by heaven, did it shake the fake court potentates and the G4S ‘Orcs’ who manned the entry points to the castle of sand, also known as the Youth and Family Court, into a state of fear.
The mantra ‘We are all Tom Crawford’ is a meme based, not in some ‘new age woo woo’, but simply in the gathering of hearts and heads of good men and women who have had enough of the genocidal practices of the fake state and the Crown House of Rothschild’s stranglehold over all aspects of their lives.
A line has been drawn in the sand. The sooner the constables of the disgraceful Nottinghamshire Police ‘Force’ wake up, the better for each of them because, in the final instance, who wishes to stand against the will of the people?
Going by the fearful faces of those Constables drafted in to protect the interests of a rigged court system, headed up by the Master of the Rolls, Rabbi Lionel Neuberger, Rothschild acolyte, none of them has the stomach for it.
This, of course, is highly appropriate: the British people have been systematically dispossessed not only of their lands by a Rothschild-backed illegitimate cadre of false crown potentates but also of their weapons of choice, by way of bogus statutory enactments. However, the inherent right to bear arms in the face of oppressive Aristocratic-State-Military tyranny can never be taken away. In times like these, when the illegal forces of fake bankster-government have all the weaponry and ammo, the individual has to be as resourceful as those of his bloodline who took up their pitchforks against their would-be oppressors.
Therefore, the new weapon of choice is the camera. It is the new pitchfork and, to use a most apposite cliche, ‘they don’t like it up ‘em.’
The about-to-be internationally launched film, The Great British Mortgage Swindle , bears testimony to this fact, featuring as it does ‘guerrilla-style’ footage of the crimes of the Rothschild agents of control: the revolution will not be televised… but it will be shown in cinemas, on dvd and across the internet and none of it would have been possible were it not the case that Cameras are the New Pitchforks.
A powerful message was sent on May Day, 2015 to all those fake potentates and unlawful ‘governors’ who falsely believe they are in charge: the peoples of these Emerald Isles are rising in the spirit of their ancestors when faced with oppressive state and corporate tyranny.
Perhaps as a sign of the times we are currently in, the hearing began with Tom being denied the equality of arms which is the right of every man to be able to defend himself against his accuser on an equal footing. Given there was a team of 4 representing the fictitious interests of the state-owned entity of fraud and extortion called ‘Bradford and Bingley’, it was a blatant attempt to deny Tom his right to a fair hearing.
It is a fact that any man has the right to appoint another he trusts assist him in court and, when required, speak on his behalf. The Legal Services Act of 2007 allows for non-professional, non-legally trained individuals to act as representatives of a lay litigant – not that statutory enactment is required to uphold an ancient right.
All of which was explained to Nigel Godsmark, a man acting as ‘Judge’ at the very beginning of the hearing, by Tom’s friend and associate Michael O’Bernicia. To suggest this was not a denial of his right to equality of arms, as Nigel did, is utterly fallacious and, of course, oppressive. After all, had not Judge Nigel been informed several days earlier, by way of notice, that Michael would be speaking on his behalf, concerning the more complex legal arguments and related aspects of the matter?
The Bank had Mrs Sandells, a barrister from the 4Square chamber of deception where the former Rothschild banker, Ben Wood also works representing its interests, yet the defendant was not to be permitted the Amicus Curiae he had already notified the court would be addressing the pertinent and more complex legal issues.
The matter in hand was a permission to appeal hearing during which it would be determined whether or not the ‘Crown’ Treasury which ‘owns’ Bradford and Bingley [UKAR] had perpetrated a fraud on the court when they initiated possession proceedings against Tom’s family home in 2012., without having the contractual or equitable right to do so.
The main plank of Tom’s argument was that the mortgage, despite the B&B’s attempts to change it, had remained an endowment one and that the bank had repudiated the original agreement when it unilaterally attempted to change it over to a repayment mortgage. They were falsely claiming it was on the instructions or agreement of Tom and Sue, when the fact was there was no such contract in place. And, in any event, any contractual arrangement for a change in the terms and conditions had to comply with s.2 of the 1989 Act.
In other words: whilst the Crawfords, by making the mortgage payments, carried out their side of the agreement, the bank who attempted to unilaterally change it and, had failed to perform on the original agreement for an endowment mortgage. That is why the B&B’s original possession claim was false: there was no valid agreement in place between the parties, which means they had no contractual or equitable right to bring the claim in the first place.
When this was pointed out to Nigel, he stood up and left the court room. Upon his return there began a farcical sequence whereby Michael O’Bernicia was effectively addressing the court whilst speaking into the ear of Tom, as his ‘MacKenzie friend’.
Contrary to the usual mainstream media distortions that claimed the verdict was delayed by the ‘protestors’ outside the court, the only reason for the delay was, with no explanation as to why, that the hearing began over 80 minutes later than its scheduled 10:30 listing and Miss Sandells (or ‘Miss Swindle’ as Nigel Godsmark called her twice in what amounted to a most revealing Freudian Slip) dragged it out by another 2 ½ hours by reading through every statement sheet, several ‘scratch card’ phone call details and generally obfuscating the facts in any which way she could. In fact, all of it was hearsay and duly rejected by Tom on that basis.
It is fair to state that this is the common practice of expensively-paid barristers when dealing with a litigant ‘in person’ – the aim is to bombard the lay man with paperwork (she attempted to hand Tom a new bundle just minutes before he entered court) and blow smoke up the arse of the judge by drowning him and all parties in the hearsay pigswill of verifiably fake accounts sheets, none of which revealed the actual source of the loan or demonstrated the accounting of the bank’s purported losses and all of which could have been produced by someone instructed to fake the figures. In other words, there is no evidence to support the claim that a mortgage switch was ever agreed between the parties.
Notwithstanding the tardy arrival of judge and barrister, the morning session was also remarkable for the fact that twice Nigel got up and fled the court. The first instance came after his exchange with Michael and Tom about the proceedings being invalid for want of a fair hearing, whilst the second occurred after a member of the public gallery (limited to 10 only, for reasons best known to the fixers at the Court), pointed out to Nigel and for the court record that the entire proceedings were fraudulent.
Upon his return, Nigel purported to bar the woman from the Court and expressed his wish that the matter be conducted peacefully. All very reasonable one might think if one were unaware of the levels of sophistry and fallacy that get spun out by those who are deemed superior enough to preside over the people and exert the rigged system on the increasingly disgruntled people of these isles.
The ‘hearing’ began again 20 minutes late after lunch. This time the delay was caused by the bovine G4S’ collective insecurity who were, by now, backed up by a confused gaggle of goons in day glow yellow in the shape of those useless puppets employed by Notts Police, the unfit for purpose private agency that is used to aid and abet the theft of people’s homes up and down the county.
Half way through a chant went up from just outside the Court – “Do your job!”
Whether or not Nigel thought this was directed at him is not known but the effect was that he announced the hearing would not go ahead whilst this continued. Michael O’Bernicia, the man to whom the judge had denied the role of amicus curiae, offered to go and speak to the people. Nigel was skeptical but what followed did indeed lead to calm being restored.
That is not to say the people were not correct to be angry – two assaults had been committed by a man working for the racketeers known as G4S, one of which resulted in ‘Andy’ landing on his face and suffering bruising to his cheek bone.
The hearing recommenced after an undertaking to maintain the peace (despite the extreme provocation of the men and women working for ‘security’ who, ironically enough, were amongst some of the most insecure individuals one is ever likely to meet) was requested by Michael and accepted as reasonable by the hundreds gathered outside who were, quite rightly, livid at the clear and apparent misconduct of the G4S security and the apathetic response of the police who showed no urgency to arrest a man for an assault that many had witnessed. Factor in the way the Crawfords have been treated by the Court, and one can easily see why feelings were running high .
What followed in the court room was more of what RM considers to be wholly erroneous outpourings from Nicole Sandells that amounted to nothing less than an obstruction of justice. It was, therefore, no surprise when Nigel explained how he would be returning his ‘judgement’ at a later date.
What had been established and agreed by all parties was the fact that there had never been any change from an endowment to a part repayment, part interest mortgage and that the Crawfords had continued to pay out, albeit on an entirely fraudulent mortgage. In other words, the purported bank had repudiated its agreement with the Crawfords – a key tenet of Tom’s skeleton argument:
Thus, the judgment by Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith granting the B&B possession back in 2012 was void ab initio, as it was demonstrably procured by the B&B’s solicitors perpetrating a fraud upon the court, in that R’s directors repudiated the conditions of the mortgage by unilaterally changing the terms to avoid the bank’s contractual obligations, to the obvious detriment of Tom and Sue Crawford and in clear breach of the Unfair Terms in Contracts Act 1977.
Quite how the bank and/or judge will wriggle out of that issue remains to be seen. It may well be that Nigel Godsmark simply grants the appeal and passes the County Court’s huge problem on to a so-called ‘Higher Court’.
In any event, the fight continues: not until all false repossessions have stopped will the people be satisfied. Justice must be seen to be done and, before that happens the film, Great British Mortgage Swindle will be playing its significant role in exposing a swindle that has been in operation ever since the pound was taken off the gold standard and the Rothschild-controlled banks licenced to create fake loans via the dead-pledge (mortgage) falsely procured via the duped mortgagor’s signature on the void deed.
The rigged game – in all its inglorious deception is becoming clearer by the day to thousands of people across these lands – and the judiciary had better “fess up” before it is too late.
The people of these lands are rising and, as Michael O’Bernicia put it:
No matter what happens today, be under no illusions – we will not back down until justice is done”
RM is not prone to giving predictions, but the re-establishment of the Grand Jury is likely to also play its part in the reclamation of those ancient rights and protections that the peoples of the isles of Britain have long held dear.
Now, who is ready to take the red, white and blue pill?