Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[ArthurWankspittle]

1. Stop quoting each other unnecessarily.
2. If you have to quote someone learn how to do it properly.

I note it didn't take long for the corruption allegation to come out. Yes, if you've been found not guilty of something it must be because the Police were corrupt.

[Jeffrey]

I like how the GOODFers win if heads, win if tails.

If Tom was found guilty:

POLICE STATE, JEWISH NAZI PEDOPHILE JUDGE CORRUPT!

If Tom was found not guilty:

HAHA WE WIN, WE TOLD YOU 15 TIMES

I think the consensus here was that it wouldn't stick, assuming it was the little tussle that was on video.

[Bones]

Now that Tom has been found not guity (fortunately he was not charged with being an idiot as that is an open and shut case) and he has lost his house, is in a ridiculous amount of debt, thanks ironically to Mark Haining and Get Out of Debt Free, is it time to draw this thread to a close, as nothing is else is really going to happen now - He might say he is going to fight it but he can't... he has nothing left to fight. Tom lost his home and bar the shouting it is all over now

All we have to look forward too now is see Mark Haining and the other mentally challenged idiots going to court.

Should we have a new thread just for that now..

[YiamCross]

Hi, sorry for the silence after my application hearing in the High Court yesterday but I had to avoid tipping off the Crawfords to my intention to serve them today at Nottingham Magistrates court with the order handed down by the judge.

I've posted a PDF of the order on my Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/groups/9107682 ... 7522655853, for the simple reason that when the respondents are made aware of it by personal service, telephone or otherwise they are at risk of the penal order if they are found to be in breach of the order. So consider this as making them aware by otherwise as we know how avidly Haining and the Crawfords follow these threads.

Service was rather interesting with Haining claiming the process server assaulted him and ironically he appealed to the police to intervene on his behalf but they chose not to. He was, however, so aggressive in his response that the court security staff ordered him to leave the building. Craig held his hands up as though surrendering and refused to take hold of the papers, in contrast to Haining who was waving the envelope around saying that he did not accept it. Fortunately for Craig his buddy who was videoing the whole episode picked the envelope up for him. Tom refused to accept the papers but again was served. Amanda was not there so missed out.

Not much more to say really except I look forward to hearing what they have to say for themselves on the 8th December.

[IDIOT]

Fortunately for Craig his buddy who was videoing the whole episode picked the envelope up for him.

Looking forward to seeing that video.

Any chance you can get the pdf up on here for viewing? Some of us don't use FaceBook remember.

[Bones]

Any chance you can get the pdf up on here for viewing? Some of us don't use FaceBook remember.

[IDIOT]

Thanks.

I did think it was rather short notice to be fair, less than a week. More to come in December then...

[Joinder]

On man, I so hope there is a video of the paper serving, I can just imagine Mark's high pitched wailing.

[Hercule Parrot]

Interim injunction with penal notice - good result, Yiam!

[ArthurWankspittle]

On man, I so hope there is a video of the paper serving, I can just imagine Mark's high pitched wailing.

Taken in contempt of court rules?
I am currently bemused by the possible scenario of everyone involved in this fiasco getting a criminal conviction with the exception of Tom.

[wanglepin]

And the legal team O'Berk, Eberk & Just A Berk Taylor.

[YiamCross]

Thanks.

I did think it was rather short notice to be fair, less than a week. More to come in December then...

Yes, but I haven't asked for anything in the order which would restrict them from doing what any reasonable person would consider part of their normal life and they have been given the opportunity to defend their actions if they can. These people are, as we've seen, able to mobilise others around the country and it was important to stop the harassment as soon as possible.

It is interesting to me that they should try to ignore the evidence I have presented and attempt to deny service at every opportunity. If it were me I'd want to respond as soon as I could, especially if I had all the evidence they claim they have against me.

[Joinder]

On man, I so hope there is a video of the paper serving, I can just imagine Mark's high pitched wailing.

Taken in contempt of court rules?
I am currently bemused by the possible scenario of everyone involved in this fiasco getting a criminal conviction with the exception of Tom.

Who cares about court rules (oops), let's see it !!

[Bungle]

Glad that he was cleared.
Ridiculous charge anyway, "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace "would have been more appropriate and likely to stick.

You are being modest, we know it was the sound advice you gave him last week that swung it his way.

I was hoping that I could keep my involvement out of the public eye,
Oh well, its out in the open now, unless you do the decent thing and delete it ?

I had a nagging doubt. Don't anymore.

[YiamCross]

.....
Ridiculous charge anyway, "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace "would have been more appropriate and likely to stick.
I've yet to see Tom being violent in any video, despite the obvious stress he is under.

Having looked at all of the videos of Tom's arrest I must say I'm surprised they didn't drop the charge against him long before it cout to court and the result seems fair and reasonable based on what I know of the evidence presented. If they really wanted something serious to stick then I'd have showed the court the way he drove at the police line when he arrived. In my mind that demonstrated a clear intention to intimidate the officers standing in his path and I certainly would have jumped out of the way.

I'm also pretty sure that if Sue had not been there to restrain Tom when Iencountered him, which she did at one point, he would have progressed to violence. In fact the way he slammed the truck door on my leg is a genuine and clear act of violence which could easily have resulted in a serious injury if I hadn't managed to catch the door and slow it down. It's there on Tom's own video for those who want to see Tom being violent but I guess some people will always choose not to see things which they don't want to see.

[Joinder]

Certainly Tom drove very fast.
He wasn't charged with that though, and I still haven't seen anything that constitutes violence from the man, let's face it, if his wife is sble to stop his violent intent ( if there was any) then that would lead me to believe he is not the violent type,
Its certainly something that wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest, but we all have different views on what is violent, regardless of what the law says.
Having been a football fan home and away in the dark days of hooliganism, I've seen enough of violent individuals to last a lifetime, Tom doesn't even come close, as you can imagine.
Anyway, good luck at Court, your injunction seems reasonable enough.

[FatGambit]

Can't say I'm surprised at the verdict, I mean he didn't even connect with the copper.

Is it legal/safe to ask what his defence relied on?

[AndyPandy]

This is the bit I like:

5. Costs reserved to 8th December 2015, I'm presuming they won't be insubstantial!!

[Pox]

This is the bit I like:

5. Costs reserved to 8th December 2015, I'm presuming they won't be insubstantial!!

They will have to be deemed 'reasonable' though. The judge won't take kindly to the pudding being over egged, so to speak.

[Footloose52]

This is the bit I like:

5. Costs reserved to 8th December 2015, I'm presuming they won't be insubstantial!!

£45,000 any one?